Nicholas Josten; Notice Dismissing Complaint, 27487 [E6-7186]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 2006 / Notices Commission’s regulations, the complaint must be dismissed. the pleading will be considered in the exemption proceeding.3 Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–7188 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am] Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–7186 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL06–68–000] [Project No. 12053–002] Nicholas Josten; Notice Dismissing Complaint May 3, 2006. cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES On April 10, 2006, Stephen J. Bruzzone and Linda L. Bruzzone filed a complaint against Nicholas Josten, applicant for an exemption for the West Valley A&B Hydroelectric Project No. 12053.1 The project is proposed to be located on the South Fork of the Pit River in Modoc County, California. The project would be located on approximately 31 acres of federal lands, managed by Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The pleading generally alleges that Nicholas Josten has made misrepresentations in information he filed in support of his application for exemption.2 The issues raised in the pleading relate to consideration of the application for exemption. As such, they are not properly the subject of a formal complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed and the comments raised in 1 The proposed project would consist of two developments, West Valley A and West Valley Alternative B–1. West Valley A would be a run-ofriver development with a capacity of 1.0 MW and would consist of: An existing concrete diversion structure; an existing intake structure; 11,600 feet of an existing open canal; a proposed concrete overflow structure; proposed 2,800 feet of new canal; a proposed 400-foot-long penstock; a proposed powerhouse; a proposed tailrace pipe; a proposed 3,000-foot-long, 12.3-kilovolt (kV) transmission line; and appurtenant facilities. West Valley Alternative B–1 would be a run-ofriver development with a capacity of 1.36 MW and would consist of: The existing West Valley Dam and outlet works; a new bypass valve attached to the existing dam outlet pipe; a proposed 2,850-foot-long penstock; a proposed powerhouse; a proposed tailrace canal; a proposed 4.5-mile-long, 12.3-kV transmission line; and appurtenant facilities. 2 In particular, they assert that Mr. Josten provided the Commission with misleading information regarding water flow tables submitted on March 23, 2006. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:29 May 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 North Star Steel Company; Complainant v. Arizona Public Service Company; California Independent System Operator Corporation; Enron Power Marketing, Inc.; Nevada Power Company; PacifiCorp; Powerex Corp.; Public Service Company of New Mexico; Tucson Electric Power Company; Respondents; Notice of Complaint May 3, 2006. Take notice that on May 2, 2006, North Star Steel (North Star) filed a formal complaint against the Arizona Public Service Company, California Independent System Operator, Enron Power Marketing, Nevada Power Company, PacifiCorp, Powerex Corp., Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Tucson Electric Power Company (Respondents), pursuant sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act and Rule 206 of the Commission’s Rule of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206. North Star petitions the Commission for an order directing the Respondents to return to North Star amounts paid to them for electric energy in excess of market clearing price between January 1, 2000 and June 20, 2001. North Star states that copies of the complaint were served on Respondents. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent’s answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent’s answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at https://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is 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 FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 23, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6–7181 Filed 5–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. ER06–826–000, et al.] PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings May 4, 2005. The following filings have been made with the Commission. The filings are listed in ascending order within each docket classification. 3 On April 20, 2006, Commission staff issued a notice that the application was ready for environmental analysis and soliciting comments, terms and conditions and recommendations. Comments are due by June 19, 2006. PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27487 E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 27487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12053-002]


Nicholas Josten; Notice Dismissing Complaint

May 3, 2006.
    On April 10, 2006, Stephen J. Bruzzone and Linda L. Bruzzone filed 
a complaint against Nicholas Josten, applicant for an exemption for the 
West Valley A&B Hydroelectric Project No. 12053.\1\ The project is 
proposed to be located on the South Fork of the Pit River in Modoc 
County, California. The project would be located on approximately 31 
acres of federal lands, managed by Forest Service and Bureau of Land 
Management. The pleading generally alleges that Nicholas Josten has 
made misrepresentations in information he filed in support of his 
application for exemption.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proposed project would consist of two developments, West 
Valley A and West Valley Alternative B-1. West Valley A would be a 
run-of-river development with a capacity of 1.0 MW and would consist 
of: An existing concrete diversion structure; an existing intake 
structure; 11,600 feet of an existing open canal; a proposed 
concrete overflow structure; proposed 2,800 feet of new canal; a 
proposed 400-foot-long penstock; a proposed powerhouse; a proposed 
tailrace pipe; a proposed 3,000-foot-long, 12.3-kilovolt (kV) 
transmission line; and appurtenant facilities.
    West Valley Alternative B-1 would be a run-of-river development 
with a capacity of 1.36 MW and would consist of: The existing West 
Valley Dam and outlet works; a new bypass valve attached to the 
existing dam outlet pipe; a proposed 2,850-foot-long penstock; a 
proposed powerhouse; a proposed tailrace canal; a proposed 4.5-mile-
long, 12.3-kV transmission line; and appurtenant facilities.
    \2\ In particular, they assert that Mr. Josten provided the 
Commission with misleading information regarding water flow tables 
submitted on March 23, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issues raised in the pleading relate to consideration of the 
application for exemption. As such, they are not properly the subject 
of a formal complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed and the 
comments raised in the pleading will be considered in the exemption 
proceeding.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On April 20, 2006, Commission staff issued a notice that the 
application was ready for environmental analysis and soliciting 
comments, terms and conditions and recommendations. Comments are due 
by June 19, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7186 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.