Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices

202–208–2106 with the required

accommodations.

For more information about the

conference, please contact Yvonne

Bartoli at (202) 502–6054

(yvonne.bartoli@ferc.gov) or Sarah

McKinley at (202) 502–8004

(sarah.mckinley@ferc.gov).

Magalie R. Salas,

Secretary.

Appendix A

Current and Possible Future Procedures for

Establishment and Approval of Electric

Reliability Standards

Technical Conference Agenda, November 18,

2005, 9:30 a.m.–3 p.m.

9:30 a.m.—Opening Remarks

Joseph T. Kelliher, FERC Chairman

9:45 a.m.—Introductions

Joseph McClelland, Director, Division of

Reliability, Office of Markets, Tariffs,

and Rates, FERC

9:50 a.m.—Panel I: Standard Setting: The

Current NERC and Regional Council

Roles and Future ERO and Regional

Entity Roles—Views from NERC,

Utilities, a Regional Council, and Canada

Representatives of NERC, utilities, a

regional council, and Canada will

provide their views on:

• How you respond currently to NERC and

Regional Council actions and how you

plan to respond to the ERO’s actions as

it establishes, implements, and enforces

reliability standards.

• The challenges you might face regarding

any new process.

Panelists:

Rick Sergel, President-CEO, North

American Electric Reliability Council

Michael G. Morris, Chairman-PresidentCEO, American Electric Power, Inc.

David Mohre, Executive Director, Energy

and Power Division, National Rural

Electric Cooperative Association

Allen Mosher, Director of Policy Analysis,

American Public Power Association

Sam R. Jones, Vice President-Chief

Operating Officer, Electric Reliability

Council of Texas, Inc.

Terry Boston, Executive Vice President,

Power System Operations, Tennessee

Valley Authority

Kim Warren, Manager, Regulatory Affairs,

Ontario IMO

11:15 a.m.—Break

11:30 a.m.—Panel II: Standard Setting: The

Views of Regional Councils on the Role

of Regional Entities Under the Energy

Policy Act of 2005

Under the EPAct of 2005, Regional Entities

may propose regional standards or

variances to the ERO, which after its

review can then propose regional

standards to the Commission for its

approval. In addition, the ERO may

delegate its enforcement authority to

Regional Entities.

Representatives from regional reliability

councils will give their perspectives on

the following:

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:22 Nov 21, 2005

Jkt 208001

• What preparations are you making

regarding the implementation of EPAct

2005?

• Are there any unique circumstances in

the region that may impact the

implementation of ERO standards? If so,

what are they?

• What are your views on regional

standards/variances?

• What are your views on regional

compliance/enforcement?

• What are your views on the terms that

are necessary to incorporate into the

delegation agreements with the ERO?

• What challenges can you identify

regarding delegation agreements with the

ERO?

Panelists:

Paul Johnson, Director, Transmission

System Engineering and Maintenance

Management, American Electric Power

(Representing Reliability First)

Edward Schwerdt, Executive Director,

Northeast Power Coordinating Council

William F. Reinke, President-CEO,

Southeastern Electric Reliability Council,

Inc.

Ken Wiley, President-CEO, Florida

Reliability Coordinating Council, Inc.

Charles Yeung, Executive Director,

Interregional Affairs, Southwest Power

Pool, Inc.

Daniel Skaar, President, Midwest

Reliability Organization

12:45 p.m.—1:30 p.m. LUNCH

1:30 p.m.—Panel III: Review of Industry

Standards

Standards are developed by many

industries throughout the United States

to provide a common approach to

promote best practices throughout that

industry. This panel will elicit views

from several different industry

representatives and a regional council on

their standards development process

within the electric industry and what

process the ERO might follow.

Panelists will provide their views on the

following questions:

• What are the processes you use to

develop standards?

• What do you believe are your successes?

What are your challenges?

• How do you improve upon standards

that are found to be deficient?

• What are the lessons learned from your

process that would be useful for the

Commission to utilize to assure high

reliability in the electric power system?

Panelists:

Rick Sergel, President-CEO, North

American Electric Reliability Council

Richard Wakefield, Past Chairman, Energy

Policy Committee, Institute of Electrical

and Electronics Engineers-USA

Richard Barrett, Office of Research,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Bruce Ellsworth, Chair, New York State

Reliability Council

Louise McCarren, CEO, Western Electricity

Coordinating Council

2:45 p.m.—Concluding Remarks

[FR Doc. E5–6429 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

70611

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RM98–1–000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record

Communications Public Notice

November 14, 2005.

This constitutes notice, in accordance

with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt

of prohibited and exempt off-the-record

communications.

Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222,

September 22, 1999) requires

Commission decisional employees, who

make or receive a prohibited or exempt

off-the-record communication relevant

to the merits of a contested proceeding,

to deliver to the Secretary, a copy of the

communication, if written, or a

summary of the substance of any oral

communication.

Prohibited communications are

included in a public, non-decisional file

associated with, but not a part of, the

decisional record of the proceeding.

Unless the Commission determines that

the prohibited communication and any

responses thereto should become a part

of the decisional record, the prohibited

off-the-record communication will not

be considered by the Commission in

reaching its decision. Parties to a

proceeding may seek the opportunity to

respond to any facts or contentions

made in a prohibited off-the-record

communication, and may request that

the Commission place the prohibited

communication and responses thereto

in the decisional record. The

Commission will grant such a request

only when it determines that fairness so

requires. Any person identified below as

having made a prohibited off-the-record

communication shall serve the

document on all parties listed on the

official service list for the applicable

proceeding in accordance with Rule

2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

Exempt off-the-record

communications are included in the

decisional record of the proceeding,

unless the communication was with a

cooperating agency as described by 40

CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR

385.2201(e)(1)(v).

The following is a list of off-therecord communications recently

received in the Office of the Secretary.

The communications listed are grouped

by docket numbers in ascending order.

These filings are available for review at

the Commission in the Public Reference

Room or may be viewed on the

Commission’s website at http://

www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary

(FERRIS) link. Enter the docket number,

E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM

22NON1

70612

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2005 / Notices

excluding the last three digits, in the

docket number field to access the

document. For assistance, please contact

FERC, Online Support at

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll

Docket No.

free at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY,

contact (202) 502–8659.

Date received

Prohibited:

1. Project No. 382–000 ........................................................

2. Project Nos. 2539–000 and 12522–000 .........................

Exempt:

1. CP05–92–000 ..................................................................

2. Project No. 2216–000 ......................................................

3. Project Nos. 2602–000 and 2692–000 ...........................

4. Project No. 10395–000 ....................................................

Presenter or requester

11–7–05

10–31–05

Amy L. Fesnock.

Jude Pinelski 1.

11–3–05

11–2–05

10–28–05

11–2–05

Hon. Ron LeLeux.

Hon. Brian Higgins.

Hon. Charles H. Taylor.

Hon. Geoff Davis.

1 One of nineteen postcard ‘‘form’’ submittals in Docket Nos. P–2539–000 and P–12522–000 filed between 10/31/05 and 11/7/05.

Magalie R. Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E5–6418 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Background

[IN 165–1; FRL–7999–6]

Adequacy Status of Vigo County, IN, 8Hour Ozone Redesignation and

Maintenance Plan for Transportation

Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is

notifying the public that EPA has found

that the motor vehicle emissions

budgets in the Vigo County, Indiana 8hour ozone redesignation request and

maintenance plan are adequate for

conformity purposes. On March 2, 1999,

the DC Circuit Court ruled that

submitted State Implementation Plans

(SIPs) cannot be used for conformity

determinations until EPA has

affirmatively found them adequate. As a

result of our finding, Vigo County can

use the motor vehicle emissions budgets

from the submitted 8-hour ozone

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for future conformity

determinations. These budgets are

effective December 7, 2005. The finding

and the response to comments will be

available at EPA’s conformity Web site:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm,

(once there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’

button, then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review

of SIP Submissions for Conformity’’).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental

Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section

(AR–18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and

Radiation Division, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

VerDate Aug<31>2005

17:22 Nov 21, 2005

Jkt 208001

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052,

rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, whenever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean

EPA.

Today’s notice is simply an

announcement of a finding that we have

already made. EPA Region 5 sent a letter

to the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management on October

25, 2005, stating that the motor vehicle

emissions budgets for the year 2015,

submitted in the Vigo County, Indiana

8-hour ozone redesignation request and

maintenance plan, are adequate. This

finding has been announced on EPA’s

conformity Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm, (once

there, click on the ‘‘Conformity’’ button,

then look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP

Submissions for Conformity’’).

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.

Conformity to a 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 conformity

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR

93.118(e)(4). 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

We’ve described our process for

determining the adequacy of submitted

SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999

memo titled ‘‘Conformity Guidance on

Implementation of March 2, 1999

Conformity Court Decision’’). We

followed this guidance in making our

adequacy determination.

Dated: November 10, 2005.

Bharat Mathur,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 05–23091 Filed 11–21–05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank

Holding Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices

also will be available for inspection at

the office of the Board of Governors.

Interested persons may express their

views in writing to the Reserve Bank

indicated for that notice or to the offices

of the Board of Governors. Comments

must be received not later than

December 6, 2005.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King,

Community Affairs Officer) 90

Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55480-0291:

1. Paul J. Hanisch, Crosby, North

Dakota; to acquire voting shares of

Hanisch Bankshares, Ltd., Crosby, North

Dakota and thereby indirectly acquire

E:\FR\FM\22NON1.SGM

22NON1