[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24943-24944]
[DOCID:fr06my10-57]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0398; FRL-9145-9]

Adequacy Status of the Indianapolis, Indiana Submitted Annual
Fine Particulate Matter Attainment Demonstration for Transportation
Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that we have found
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as a
precursor to PM2.5 in the Indianapolis, Indiana area are
adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations. Indiana
submitted the Indianapolis area budgets with the final PM2.5
attainment demonstration submittal on June 5, 2008. As a result of our
finding, the Indianapolis, Indiana area must use the MVEBs from the
submitted PM2.5 attainment demonstration plan for future
transportation conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective May 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch,
Air and Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 353-8656<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Background

    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. On April 12, 2010, EPA Region 5 sent a letter to the
Indiana Department of Environmental

Management stating that the 2002 and 2009 MVEBs for the Indianapolis,
Indiana area, which were submitted with the state's PM2.5
attainment demonstration, are adequate. Receipt of these MVEBs was
announced on EPA's transportation conformity website with a 30 day
public comment period, and no comments were submitted. The finding is
available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
    The adequate 2002 and 2009 MVEBs, in tons per year (tpy), for
PM2.5 and NOX for the Indianapolis, Indiana area
are as follows:

                          Indianapolis, Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      PM2.5 (tpy)          NOX (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................  842.37............  47,815.51
2009............................  518.43............  28,537.23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality
implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they do conform. Conformity to a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle
emission budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes
are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described our process for
determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004,
preamble starting at 69 FR 40038, and we used the information in these
resources while making our adequacy determination. Please note that an
adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also
should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even
if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
    The finding and the response to comments are available at EPA's
transportation conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q.

    Dated: April 26, 2010.
Margaret Guerriero,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2010-10693 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


October 26, 2001 Donald R. Lynam Vice President, Air Conservation Ethyl Corporation 330 South Fourth Street Richmond, VA 23219 4304 Dear Dr. Lynam,

On October 9, 2001, the Ethyl Corporation ( Ethyl) submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) a revised health study protocol for MMT, entitled, " Pharmacokinetics of inhaled manganese sulfate in pregnant and lactating CD rats", ( CIIT Protocol 01003), as required under the Alternative Tier 2 Health Effects Testing Requirements. These requirements were finalized in the notification received by Ethyl on May 25, 2000. As you know, the notification requires EPA review and approval of these protocols.

We believe that this revised protocol has addressed all the comments that we conveyed to you in the July 2, 2001, letter from Robert Larson and subsequent communication from Joe Sopata of my staff after review of the August 21, 2001 protocol. This letter conveys the Agency's approval of the October 9, 2001, revised protocol.

If you have any questions concerning our review, please contact Joe Sopata of my staff at ( 202) 564 9034.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Robert E. Larson, Acting Director Transportation and Regional Programs Division cc: Monica Alvarez, ORD/ OSP Stan Durkee, ORD/ OSP J. Michael Davis, ORD/ NCEA Bill Russo, ORD/ NHEERL Hal Zenick, ORD/ NHEERL William Farland, ORD/ NHEERL Tim Backstrom, OGC Kevin Fast, Hunton & Williams


[Federal Register: June 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 111)]
[Notices]
[Page 32611-32613]
[DOCID:fr09jn08-85]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57904; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Discontinue Its Policy of Requiring Listed Companies Whose Charters
Contain Transfer Restrictions To Amend Their Charters To Include
Language Specifying That Those Restrictions Do Not Apply to Public
Market Transactions

June 2, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 16, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as ``non-
controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \3\ of the Act and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to discontinue its policy of requiring listed
companies whose charters contain transfer restrictions to amend their
charters to include language specifying that those restrictions do not
apply to public market transactions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site, http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to discontinue its policy of requiring listed
companies whose charters contain transfer restrictions to amend their
charters to include language specifying that those restrictions do not
apply to public market transactions. The change in policy will apply to
companies listing in connection with their initial public offerings, as
well as companies transferring from other markets.
    The Exchange has a long-standing policy of prohibiting the
inclusion by any listed company in its charter of restrictions on
transfers of the company's equity securities. Typically such provisions
purport to enable the company to void transactions involving the
transfer of the company's shares to purchasers who are designated
prohibited holders. A purchaser is generally deemed to be a prohibited
holder because it owns more than a specified threshold amount of the
company's equity securities, or will do so if the prohibited
transaction is consummated. Companies impose transfer restrictions for
a variety of reasons, but they are most commonly found in the context
of (i) real estate investment trusts (``REITs'') that wish to avoid
losing their REIT status on the basis that a shareholder owns more than
5% of the company's common equity or (ii) companies recently emerged
from bankruptcy whose net operating loss (``NOL'') assets may be
impaired as a result of changes in ownership levels by any shareholder
owning more than 5% of the common equity securities. The charter will
typically provide that the company will have the right to seize any
shares bought by a prohibited purchaser and place them in trust to be
sold for the benefit of that prohibited purchaser. The Exchange is
generally not concerned with the application of this type of
arrangement as it does not affect the finality of the sale as it
relates to the seller. However, the Exchange is concerned if the
language of the charter may be read as giving the company the ability
to unwind the transaction or prohibit sellers from transferring to any
willing purchaser in Exchange transactions. To that end, the Exchange
requires companies that have transfer restrictions in their charters to
include the following provision:

    NYSE Transactions. Nothing in this Article [ ] shall preclude
the settlement of any transaction entered into through the
facilities of the New York Stock Exchange or any other national
securities exchange or automated inter-dealer quotation system. The
fact that the settlement of any transaction occurs shall not negate
the effect of any provision of this Article [ ] and any transferee
in such a transaction shall be subject to all of the provisions and
limitations set forth in this Article [ ].
    The Exchange believes that it is generally unproblematic for a
company listing at the time of its initial public offering to amend its
charter to insert the Exchange's required language, as such companies
are typically closely held and can easily amend the charter by written
consent prior to listing. However, to the Exchange's knowledge, none of
the other national securities exchanges impose such a requirement and,
as a consequence, a company transferring from another market will
typically need to secure a vote from its public shareholders to amend
the charter. As an accommodation, the Exchange allows transferring
companies to list on the basis of a commitment to have a vote with
respect to adding the required language to the charter at the company's
next scheduled annual meeting. Companies are frequently uncomfortable
with this requirement, as they believe it is confusing to shareholders
and is unnecessary from a practical standpoint. As such, the Exchange
believes the continuation of this policy by it represents a barrier to
effective competition with other markets that do not apply such a
policy.
    The Exchange has reviewed its transfer restrictions policy and
concluded that it is no longer necessary in light of the structure of
the modern securities markets. Because all exchange transactions are
between anonymous street name accounts, it is impossible for a listed
company to identify in advance a proposed transferee as a prohibited
holder and block the transaction in advance of its execution. The
company will only become aware of such a transfer when the purchaser
files a Form 13D or 13G, at which time the company may exercise any
right it may have to seize the shares and sell them. Notwithstanding
the language contained in certain charters to the effect that
prohibited transfers are ``void,'' the Exchange does not believe that
it is feasible for a listed company to require the unwinding of a
prohibited transfer.\5\ As such, the Exchange does not believe that
requiring companies to include in their charters language specifying
that any transfer restrictions do not apply to public market
transactions provides any meaningful or necessary protection to sellers
and believes that it is appropriate to discontinue this policy. The
Exchange believes that discontinuing this policy will not result in any
substantially greater likelihood that companies will be able to cause
the unwinding of public market transactions in their equity securities.
While it may be less burdensome in

many cases for companies undertaking an IPO to comply with the existing
policy than is the case for companies that are already public, the
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to end the policy with respect
to all companies including IPOs, as it believes that the policy is
unnecessary for the reasons stated above and it places the Exchange at
a potential competitive disadvantage to other markets that do not
impose such a requirement on companies listing at the time of their
IPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange expresses no opinion as to the legal
enforceability of transfer restriction provisions in company
charters, which is a matter of the law of the jurisdiction of
incorporation of the company in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change in policy will
particularly promote competition among exchanges, as it will eliminate
a potential impediment to the transfer of the listing of certain
companies from other markets to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay and designate the
proposed rule change to become operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because eliminating the NYSE's longstanding transfer restrictions
policy should not have any effect on the settlement of public market
transactions on the Exchange. The Commission designates the proposal to
become effective and operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed rule on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-40 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-40. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2008-40 and should be submitted on or before June 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12797 Filed 6-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 9838]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04152]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-36-000]

Arizona Public Service Company; Notice of Institution of Section
206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On February 22, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL16-36-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and
reasonableness of Arizona Public Service Company's market based rates
in the Tucson Electric balancing authority area. Arizona Public Service
Company, 154 FERC ] 61,123 (2016).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-36-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: February 22, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04152 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 15010]
[DOCID:fr02ap09-89]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Regulation FD; OMB Control No. 3235-0536; SEC File No. 270-475.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for an extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100 et seq.)--Other Disclosure Materials
requires public disclosure of material information from issuers of
publicly traded securities so that investors have current information
upon which to base investment decisions. The purpose of the regulation
is to require that: (1) When an issuer intentionally discloses material
information, it does so through public disclosure, not selective
disclosure; and (2) whenever an issuer learns that it has made a non-
intentional material selective disclosure, the issuer makes prompt
public disclosure of that information. Regulation FD was adopted due to
a concern that the practice of selective disclosure leads to a loss of
investor confidence in the integrity of our capital markets. All
information is provided to the public for review. The information
required is filed on occasion and is mandatory. We estimate that
approximately 13,000 issuers make Regulation FD disclosures
approximately five times a year for a total of 58,000 submissions
annually, not including an estimated 7,000 issuers who file Form 8-K
(17 CFR 249.308) to comply with Regulation FD. We estimate that it
takes approximately 5 hours per response (58,000 responses x 5 hours)
for an estimated total burden of 290,000 hours annually. In addition,
we estimate that 25% of the 5 hours (1.25 hours) is prepared by the
filer for an estimated annual reporting burden of 72,500 hours (1.25
hours per response x 58,000 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria VA 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: March 27, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-7356 Filed 4-1-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47996]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19995]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0505]

Security Zone; 2011 Seattle Seafair Fleet Week Moving Vessels,
Puget Sound, WA; Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On July 11, 2011 the Coast Guard published a temporary final
rule in the Federal Register (76 FR 40617), establishing temporary
security zones around visiting foreign and domestic military vessels
that are participating the 2011 Seattle's Seafair Fleet Week. This
document corrects the list of visiting military vessels for which the
rule will establish security zones.

DATES: This correction is effective from 8 a.m. on August 3, 2011
through 5 p.m. on August 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
correction document, call or e-mail ENS Anthony P. LaBoy, Coast Guard
Sector Puget Sound, Waterways Management Division; telephone 206-217-
6323, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Correction

    In the temporary final rule FR Doc. 2011-17261, beginning on page
40617 in the Federal Register issue of July 11, 2011, make the
following corrections:
    1. In the SUMMARY section, on page 40617, starting at the bottom of
the 2nd column, correct the first sentence of the SUMMARY to read as
follows:
    The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing temporary security zones
around the HMCS WHITEHORSE (NCSM 705), HMCS NANAIMO (NCSM 702), CCGS
SIYAY, and the USCGC ALERT (WMEC 630) which include all waters within
500 yards from the vessels while each vessel is participating in the
Seafair Fleet Week Parade of Ships and while moored following the
parade until departing on August 8, 2011.
    2. In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, under the heading of
``Discussion of Rule,'' in the first column on page 40618, correct the
first sentence to read as follows:

    The temporary security zones established by this rule will
prohibit any person or vessel from entering or remaining within 500
yards of the HMCS WHITEHORSE (NCSM 705), HMCS NANAIMO (NCSM 702),
CCGS SIYAY, and the USCGC ALERT (WMEC 630) while these vessels are
participating in the Parade of Ships and while moored at Pier 66,
Terminal 25, and Terminal 46.

    3. In the regulatory text, starting in the second column on page
40619, correct Sec.  165.T13-186 (a) to read as follows:
    Location: The following areas are security zones: All waters within
the Captain of the Port Puget Sound Zone encompassed within 500 yards
of the HMCS WHITEHORSE (NCSM 705), HMCS NANAIMO (NCSM 702), CCGS SIYAY,
and the USCGC ALERT (WMEC 630) while each vessel is participating in
the Seafair Fleet Week Parade of Ships and while moored at Pier 66,
Terminal 25, and Terminal 46, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA.

    Dated: July 27, 2011.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2011-19995 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47199-47200]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16947]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2466-035]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Application non-capacity amendment of
license.
    b. Project No.: 2466-035.
    c. Date Filed: July 15, 2020.
    d. Licensee: Appalachian Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Niagara Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Roanoke River in Roanoke
County, Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Licensee Contact: Elizabeth Parcell, Appalachian Power Company,
P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke, VA 24011,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
August 28, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2466-035. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to replace the
existing bottom-hinged, leaf-type gate and hoist system in the sluice
structure at the dam with a bottom-hinged, inflatable Obermeyer
(pneumatically actuated) gate and operating system. The gate
replacement is needed to improve project operations and allow for
remote operation to directly control the reservoir surface elevation
and provide required minimum flows. No ground disturbing activities are
proposed.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. You may also register online at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via
email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: July 29, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16947 Filed 8-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 31847]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-39]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-996-000]

CBA Endeavors, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

May 29, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
CBA Endeavor, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 18, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12447 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P