30696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices 

Issued at Washington, DC on May 20, 2011. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13063 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial 

Action at Active Uranium and Thorium 

Processing Sites 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Revised notice of the acceptance 

of Title X claims during fiscal year (FY) 

2011. 

SUMMARY: This Notice announces 

revisions to the Department of Energy 

(DOE) acceptance of claims in FY 2011 

from eligible active uranium and 

thorium processing site licensees for 

reimbursement under Title X of the 

Energy Policy Act of 1992. In our 

Federal Register Notice of November 

24, 2010 (75 FR 71677), the Department 

announced the closing date for the 

submission of claims in FY 2011 as 

April 29, 2011. In a subsequent Federal 

Register Notice of May 3, 2011, (76 FR 

24871), the Department announced it 

had become necessary to defer that 

closing date for acceptance of claims; 

and at a later date, the Department 

would announce a new closing date for 

the submission of FY 2011 claims and 

a new address for submitting the claims. 

DATES: The revised closing date for the 

submission of claims in FY 2011 is June 

3, 2011. These new claims will be 

processed for payment by June 1, 2012, 

together with any eligible unpaid 

approved claim balances from prior 

years. All reimbursements are subject to 

the availability of funds from 

congressional appropriations. 

ADDRESSES: Claims should be forwarded 

by certified or registered mail, return 

receipt requested, to U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Legacy Management, 

Attn: Title X Coordinator, 2597 Legacy 

Way, Grand Junction, Colorado 81503. 

Two copies of the claim should be 

included with each submission. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact David Mathes at (301) 903–7222 

of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of Environmental Management, Office of 

Disposal Operations. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

published a final rule under 10 CFR part 

765 in the Federal Register on May 23, 

1994 (59 FR 26714), to carry out the 

requirements of Title X of the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992 (sections 1001–1004 

of Pub. L. 102–486, 42 U.S.C. 2296a et 

seq.) and to establish the procedures for 

eligible licensees to submit claims for 

reimbursement. DOE amended the final 

rule on June 3, 2003 (68 FR 32955), to 

adopt several technical and 

administrative amendments (e.g., 

statutory increases in the 

reimbursement ceilings). Title X 

requires DOE to reimburse eligible 

uranium and thorium licensees for 

certain costs of decontamination, 

decommissioning, reclamation, and 

other remedial action incurred by 

licensees at active uranium and thorium 

processing sites to remediate byproduct 

material generated as an incident of 

sales to the United States Government. 

To be reimbursable, costs of remedial 

action must be for work which is 

necessary to comply with applicable 

requirements of the Uranium Mill 

Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 

(42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) or, where 

appropriate, with requirements 

established by a State pursuant to a 

discontinuance agreement under section 

274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

(42 U.S.C. 2021). Claims for 

reimbursement must be supported by 

reasonable documentation as 

determined by DOE in accordance with 

10 CFR Part 765. Funds for 

reimbursement will be provided from 

the Uranium Enrichment 

Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Fund established at the Department of 

Treasury pursuant to section 1801 of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 

2297g). Payment or obligation of funds 

shall be subject to the requirements of 

the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 

1341). 

Authority: Section 1001–1004 of Public 

Law 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 (42 U.S.C. 

2296a et seq.). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 19th of 

May 2011. 

David E. Mathes, 

Office of Disposal Operations, Office of 

Technical and Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13064 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–NOA– 

0039] 

Technology Evaluation Process 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of request for 

information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) seeks comments and 

information related to a commercial 

buildings technology evaluation 

process. DOE is seeking to create a 

process for evaluating emerging and 

underutilized energy efficient 

technologies for commercial buildings 

based on the voluntary submittal of 

product test data. The program would 

be centered on a publicly accessible 

listing of products that meet minimum 

energy efficiency criteria specified for 

the applicable technology type. 

Evaluation under the criteria would be 

based on product test data submitted by 

manufacturers, then analyzed by DOE to 

generate information related to the 

energy savings of the products. For 

those products that met the specified 

minimum energy efficiency criteria, the 

results of such analyses would be made 

publicly available. The program would 

provide centralized information on the 

analysis factors in a manner that would 

make results directly comparable 

between products within the same 

technology type or area. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

June 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0039, by 

any of the following methods. Your 

response should be limited to 3 pages. 

Questions relative to responding to this 

RFI may be sent to the same mailbox in 

advance of your response, and will be 

answered via e-mail. 

• E-mail: to TechID-RFI-2011-NOA0039@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011– 

BT–NOA–0039 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Revisions to Energy Efficiency 

Enforcement Regulations, EERE–2011– 

BT–NOA–0039, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information may be sent to Mr. Alan 

Schroeder, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices 30697 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: 202–586–0158. E-mail: 

Alan.Schroeder@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Program Overview 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

is seeking to create a process for 

evaluating emerging and underutilized 

energy efficient technologies for 

commercial buildings based on the 

voluntary submittal of product test data. 

The program would be centered on a 

publicly accessible listing of products 

that meet minimum energy efficiency 

criteria specified for the applicable 

technology type. Evaluation under the 

criteria would be based on product test 

data submitted by manufacturers, then 

analyzed by DOE to generate 

information related to the energy 

savings of the products. For those 

products that met the specified 

minimum energy efficiency criteria, the 

results of such analyses would be made 

publicly available. The program would 

provide centralized information on the 

analysis factors in a manner that would 

make results directly comparable 

between products within the same 

technology type or area. 

DOE recognizes that building owners 

and operators, utilities, states, and local 

governments, among others, could 

greatly benefit from a central listing of 

product test data and a standard process 

for evaluating potential commercial 

building technologies, thus potentially 

preventing the duplication of product 

evaluation efforts. The goal of creating 

this standard process is to evaluate 

energy-saving technologies in a common 

manner utilizing product test data. The 

process is intended to help accelerate 

the adoption of energy-saving 

commercial building equipment by 

providing information to owners, 

operators, utilities, states, and local 

governments to facilitate decisions 

regarding the purchase/implementation 

of the technologies. To facilitate 

awareness of the new process, and to 

allow interested parties to provide 

suggestions, comments, and 

information, DOE is publishing this 

Request for Information (RFI). 

DOE envisions the new technology 

evaluation process will be based on 

several central elements. As proposed, 

the evaluations would be based on 

qualified third-party laboratory test data 

using only qualified procedures. 

Manufacturers, and possibly utilities, 

suppliers, and energy programs would 

submit third-party test data to the 

program through a Web site portal. 

Technology areas of interest would be 

identified by DOE and test data 

submissions would need to fall within 

these areas of interest. The up-to-date 

technology areas of interest would be 

identified on the test data submission 

Web site. 

As currently being considered, the 

test data would be reviewed to ensure 

it comports with program specifications 

and subsequently evaluated using 

standard methodologies. The 

evaluations would use the test data as 

input for DOE models to perform 

analyses such as energy savings 

analyses, life-cycle cost analyses, and 

payback analyses for the technology 

being evaluated. Results of the 

technology evaluations would be 

publicly available for those products 

that met specified minimum criteria. 

Test data submitters would have an 

opportunity to comment on the results 

of the evaluations of their test data prior 

to a determination of whether the 

evaluations were posted. 

Detailed Description 

The following describes the 

considered framework through which 

DOE intends to develop a new voluntary 

commercial building technology 

evaluation process. Participation in this 

program would be strictly voluntary; 

however, evaluations conducted 

through this program would be available 

to the public. 

The screening would consist of a 

three-step review followed by specified 

energy- and cost-related analyses. The 

first review would be to ensure that the 

product is of a type identified by DOE 

as a technology of interest. The second 

review would be of the data source. 

DOE is considering specifying that data 

be generated by an industry-accredited 

test laboratory. The third review would 

ensure that the data was generated 

according to a recognized test 

procedure. If a submission does meet all 

three criteria in the reviews, DOE would 

perform the following analyses: Annual 

operating expense, energy savings, lifecycle cost, and payback analysis. DOE is 

also interested in recommendations of 

additional analyses that would assist 

building owners and managers in 

making investment decisions. DOE has 

not yet identified what results would be 

necessary under each analysis in order 

for a product to be publicly listed under 

the program, and is accepting comment 

on this issue. For submitted test data 

that does not meet the review criteria, 

DOE would still accept the test data, but 

is unlikely to conduct any analyses. 

The first review would be to ensure 

that the test data is for a product within 

the current technology scope of this new 

process, as identified by DOE. The 

current technology areas of interest 

would be listed on the test data 

submission Web site. This list of areas 

of interest would be updated 

approximately every six months. 

The second review would be to 

ensure that submitted test data 

originated from an accredited 

laboratory. As stated above, DOE 

intends to have the process rely on 

third-party test data from sources 

recognized under an industry 

accreditation program. Generally, thirdparty test data can support accurate and 

reliable evaluations of technologies 

related to the energy savings potential of 

implementing, or switching to, certain 

commercial building technologies. To 

qualify as an accredited third party 

laboratory, the laboratory that generates 

the test data would need to be 

accredited to ISO 17025 General 

Requirements for the Competence of 

Testing and Calibration Laboratories, or 

an equivalent standard as determined by 

DOE in its evaluation methodology. 

The third review of the test data 

would be to ensure that the test data 

was collected according to a qualified 

test plan. To be considered a qualified 

test plan, the test procedure run by the 

third party laboratory would need to be 

one of the following: 

(a) A Federal test procedure 

established in regulation (e.g., a DOE 

appliance efficiency test procedure). 

(b) A test procedure relied upon by a 

Federal program (e.g., an ENERGY 

STAR-qualified test procedure). 

(c) A test procedure established under 

an industry consensus process. 

DOE anticipates that a Web site would 

serve as both a portal for submitting test 

data and accessing the product 

evaluation listings by technology area. 

The Web site would contain a test data 

submission form to provide DOE with a 

technology description and features, 

qualifying test data, cost information, 

manufacturer-estimated energy savings 

achievable, and the intended scope of 

applicability for the product, all of 

which would be used to evaluate or 

characterize the technology or product. 

DOE’s primary interest in structuring 

the technology evaluations is to provide 

objective product energy savings 

information that commercial building 

owners and operators would need to 

determine whether to make a capital 

investment in a particular technology. 

Products that did not meet the specified 

level of energy efficiency would not be 

listed. The technology evaluations 

would be model-based and are not 

expected to involve any field testing. 

The submitted product test data and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

30698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices 

cost data would serve as the basis for 

DOE’s various analyses. These analyses 

would utilize models that would be 

standard for similar products and 

technology areas (e.g. all condensing 

water heater test data will be input into 

the same models and will undergo the 

same analyses as other water heating 

technologies). This would make analysis 

results comparable within similar 

technology groups. Each of the analyses 

that would be performed as part of the 

evaluation is described below. The 

methodologies for performing the 

analyses would vary by product type, 

but would be the same within product 

groups so that results are directly 

comparable. Submitters would provide 

the expected use-case conditions for the 

product, thus identifying the conditions 

under which it would be evaluated. The 

use-case conditions would be included 

in the final evaluation report. 

Annual Operating Expense: The 

annual operating expense calculation 

would estimate the total cost of 

operating, repairing, and maintaining 

the technology over the course of a year. 

The annual operating expense would 

take into account the energy 

consumption of the product and energy 

price models to calculate an annual 

energy expense for specific regions of 

the country. The annual energy expense 

would be combined with estimated 

repair and maintenance costs for the 

product to calculate the annual 

operating expense for the submitted 

product test data. 

Energy Savings Analysis: The energy 

savings analysis would calculate the 

total energy savings from an overnight 

switch to the new technology. The 

energy savings would be calculated as 

the difference between the annual unit 

energy consumption of a baseline 

technology and the annual unit energy 

consumption of the submitted product. 

The annual unit energy consumption of 

the new product would come from the 

test data. The baseline technology 

annual unit energy consumption would 

be determined by evaluating the 

distribution of product efficiencies 

currently in the marketplace. 

DOE is suggesting that cost data for a 

product, specifically total installed cost 

data, be submitted along with the 

product test data. Then, more extensive 

and detailed analyses may be 

performed, such as a Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis and a Payback Period Analysis. 

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: The lifecycle cost is the total consumer expense 

over the life of a product, including 

purchase expenses and operating costs 

(including energy expenditures). Future 

operating costs are discounted to the 

time of purchase and then are summed 

over the anticipated lifetime of the 

product. 

The life-cycle cost is equal to the total 

installed cost plus the summation over 

the lifetime of the product of the 

operating costs discounted back to 

present day. The parameters to be 

defined for a life-cycle cost analysis are 

therefore: 

(A) The total installed cost, in dollars. 

(B) The lifetime of the technology, in 

years. 

(C) The operating cost, in dollars. 

(D) The discount rate. 

(E) The year for which operating cost 

is to be determined. 

The total installed cost would be 

submitted by the manufacturer along 

with the product test data. The primary 

inputs for establishing the operating 

cost are: 

(C.1) Equipment energy consumption. 

(C.2) Equipment efficiency. 

(C.3) Energy prices. 

(C.4) Energy price trends. 

(C.5) Repair and maintenance costs. 

(C.6) Lifetime. 

(C.7) Discount rate. 

DOE would utilize standard models 

and values for Energy Prices and Energy 

Price Trends based on compiled 

databases. Discount rate would be 

assumed by DOE. Repair and 

Maintenance Costs and Product Lifetime 

for all products of the same technology 

type would also be assumed if 

additional third-party test data is not 

provided to support manufacturersuggested values for these fields. 

Remaining are Equipment Energy 

Consumption and Equipment Efficiency 

to be determined in order to calculate 

the operating cost. Energy Consumption 

and Energy Prices would be used to 

calculate the Annual Energy Expense. 

The Annual Energy Expense and Repair 

and Maintenance Cost would be used to 

calculate the Annual Operating 

Expense. The Annual Operating 

Expense combined with the assumed 

Lifetime, Discount Rate, and Energy 

Price Trends would be used to calculate 

the Lifetime Operating Expense. Finally, 

the Lifetime Operating Expense 

combined with the Total Installed Cost 

would be used to calculate the LifeCycle Cost of the product. 

As stated, Equipment Energy 

Consumption and Equipment Efficiency 

would come from the product test data 

submitted to the program by 

manufacturers. Energy consumption and 

efficiency data would be extracted from 

the submitted test data and will be fed 

into the standard DOE models, 

combined with standard assumed 

parameters, and the output would be 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

(described below). 

Payback Analysis: The payback 

period is the change in purchase 

expense of the new product (from a less 

efficient design to a more efficient 

design) divided by the change in annual 

operating expense that results from 

switching to the new product. It 

represents the number of years it will 

take the user to recover the assumed 

increased purchase expense of more 

energy-efficient equipment through 

decreased operating expenses. This 

calculation is known as a ‘‘simple’’ 

payback period because it does not take 

into account changes in operating 

expense over time or the time value of 

money (i.e., uses an effective discount 

rate of zero percent). 

The data inputs to this analysis would 

be the total installed cost of the 

equipment to the consumer and the 

annual (first year) operating 

expenditures. From the Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis, the same methodology would 

be used and the Total Installed Cost, 

provided by the submitter or assumed in 

the analysis, would be combined with 

the Annual Operating Expense to 

calculate the Payback Period for the 

product. A payback period analysis 

compares the savings from switching to 

a more efficient product with the cost of 

a less efficient product, or baseline. For 

these analyses, the baseline would be 

determined by evaluating the 

distribution of product efficiencies 

currently in the marketplace. The 

resulting estimates would be used as the 

base case for the analysis. 

As noted above, DOE is interested in 

receiving comments on the analyses 

proposed as part of the evaluation 

process. In addition, DOE is interested 

in what subsequent analyses or data 

would be most useful in assisting 

investment decisions. Evaluation results 

would first be sent to the manufacturer 

for comment following completion and 

prior to a decision of whether to list the 

product. The manufacturer would have 

a period of three weeks to return 

comments on the results of the 

evaluation. The comment period is 

intended to provide the manufacturer 

with a fair opportunity to justify or 

comment on whatever the evaluation 

results might reflect. DOE would 

develop a mechanism for creating 

awareness of completed and posted 

evaluation reports to ensure that the 

technology evaluations facilitate market 

adoption. Only products that meet a 

minimum energy efficiency 

improvement threshold would be 

posted to the program Web site. DOE 

seeks comments on what these 

threshold levels should be for different 

products. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2011 / Notices 30699 

Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Commentand Information 

DOE invites comments from 

respondents on all the specific elements 

discussed above, as well as any 

additional issues the respondent deems 

important. Specifically, DOE is 

requesting comment as to what level of 

analysis results should be necessary for 

a product to be listed. DOE is also 

requesting comment on the 

appropriateness of the analyses as 

described. 

DOE is also interested in information 

from organizations currently conducting 

technology evaluations or housing 

product test data to create a listing for 

commercial building technologies based 

on the evaluation of test data. DOE seeks 

input from stakeholders conducting 

similar technology evaluation programs. 

Those stakeholders should respond to 

the following queries: 

(1) How could DOE compliment 

existing efforts? 

(2) Comments on the potential to use 

the proposed DOE evaluation process. 

(3) Examples of your current 

technology evaluation program. The 

summary should include, at a 

minimum, the purpose of the program, 

the procedure and test plan followed for 

evaluations, and the reporting format of 

results. A sample evaluation may be 

included as an additional attachment. 

(4) Example test data used either in 

other evaluation programs (see query 3 

above) or as potential input into the 

process. 

(5) Comments on the DOE-proposed 

review criteria. 

(6) What commercial building 

technologies have been evaluated, or are 

planned for future evaluation, in your 

program? 

(7) What organizations, if any, are 

qualified to accredit test facilities for 

this type of program? 

DOE is also requesting notice of the 

availability of, and willingness to share, 

test data (that meets the established 

criteria) within the technology scope of 

the new Technology EvaluationProcess, 

as outlined in this RFI. DOE also 

requests that, once functional, 

manufacturers, utilities, research 

organizations, state and municipal 

energy programs, and other stakeholders 

submit test data through the program 

Web site via the nomination form. 

Disclaimer and Important Notes 

This is an RFI issued solely for 

information and program planning 

purposes; this RFI does not constitute a 

formal solicitation for proposals or 

abstracts. Your response to this notice 

will be treated as information only. DOE 

will not provide reimbursement for 

costs incurred in responding to this RFI. 

Respondents are advised that DOE is 

under no obligation to acknowledge 

receipt of the information received or 

provide feedback to respondents with 

respect to any information submitted 

under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do 

not bind DOE to any further actions 

related to this topic. 

Confidential Business Information 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via e-mail, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via e-mail or 

on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its 

own determination about the 

confidential status of the information 

and treat it according to its 

determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

Issued in Washington, DC on May 18, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13096 Filed 5–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric corporate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: EC11–80–000. 

Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power, 

LLC, Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC, 

Evergreen Wind Power V, LLC, 

Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC, 

Stetson Wind II, LLC, Evergreen Gen 

Lead, LLC, Vermont Wind, LLC, Niagara 

Wind Power, LLC, Evergreen Wind 

Power III, LLC, Northeast Wind 

Holdings, LLC. 

Description: Application for Approval 

under FPA Section 203 of Niagara Wind 

Power, LLC, et al. 

Filed Date: 05/18/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110518–5204. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Wednesday, June 8, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: EC11–81–000. 

Applicants: Dayton Power and Light 

Company, The AES Corporation, DPL 

Inc., DPL Energy, LLC. 

Description: Application for 

Authorization of Disposition of 

Jurisdictional Assets and Merger of The 

AES Corporation and DPL Inc. 

Filed Date: 05/19/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110519–5027. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, June 9, 2011. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER10–787–007, 

EL10–50–005, EL10–57–005. 

Applicants: ISO New England Inc., 

New England Power Pool Participants 

Committee. 

Description: ISO–NE Compliance 

Filing in Response to FERC Order 

issued on April 13, 2011. 

Filed Date: 05/13/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110513–5170. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Friday, June 3, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER10–3323–004. 

Applicants: Indeck-Olean Limited 

Partnership. 

Description: Indeck-Olean Limited 

Partnership submits tariff filing per 35: 

Indeck-Olean Compliance File Baseline 

FERC Electric MBR Tariff No. 1 to be 

effective 5/18/2011. 

Filed Date: 05/18/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110518–5137. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Wednesday, June 8, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2908–001. 

Applicants: Midwest Independent 

Transmission System Operator, Inc. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES