[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3771-3772]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-765-000; ER19-766-000; ER19-767-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Power Company.
    Description: Amendment to January 4, 2019 Gulf Power Company tariff
filings.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-361-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
International Transmission Company, Michigan Electric Transmission
Company, ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: 2019-02-07_2nd Refund Report for ITC
Companies re Transco Adder (EL18-140) to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-998-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OPC IA Amendment Filing (to
Remove Gulf) to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-999-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: CED Solar Development
(Timberland Solar) LGIA Amendment Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1000-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TVA Interchange Agreement
Amendment Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1001-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TVA Interchange Agreement
Amendment Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1002-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: TVA Interchange Agreement
Amendment Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1003-000.
    Applicants: Crystal Lake Wind Energy II, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Crystal Lake Wind Energy II,
LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective 4/7/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1004-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: JEA Interchange Contract
Amendment Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1005-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: JEA Interchange Contract
Amendment Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1006-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: JEA Interchange Contract
Amendment Filing to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1007-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Reactive
Service Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 and Request for Waiver to be effective
2/5/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1008-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GIA & Distrib Serv Agmt
Strata Saticoy, LLC Saticoy Energy Storage to be effective 2/8/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1009-000.
    Applicants: Revere Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBR Application to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1010-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-02-07_SA 3235 ITC
Midwest-Duane Arnold Solar GIA (J504) to be effective 1/24/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1011-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ICSA/SA
No. 3789; Queue No. T16 to be effective 12/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1012-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to the OATT and
RAA re Price Responsive Demand Modifications to be effective 4/9/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1013-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-02-07 Specify Minimum
Requirements for Interconnection Requests Amendment to be effective 4/
1/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1014-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-02-07_SA 3244 Ameren
Illinois-Marathon Petroleum CPA (Heath Substation) to be effective 1/8/
2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/28/19.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES19-18-000.
    Applicants: Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of the Northern Maine Independent
System Administrator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 7, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02149 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57495-57497]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82172; File No. SR-MRX-2017-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Shell
Structure for the MRX Rulebook

November 29, 2017.
    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 November 17, 2017, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' 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 prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a shell structure for the MRX
rulebook (``Rulebook'') as part of its initiative to structure its
Rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 Exchange 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
    On March 9, 2016, Nasdaq, Inc. acquired the capital stock of U.S.
Exchange Holdings, thereby indirectly acquiring all of the interests of
the International Securities Exchange, LLC (now Nasdaq ISE, LLC), ISE
Gemini, LLC (now Nasdaq GEMX, LLC) and ISE Mercury, LLC (now MRX).\3\
The acquisition resulted in a total of six self-regulatory organization
licenses for Nasdaq, Inc. which, in addition to the three
aforementioned exchanges, also include The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') and Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'')
(collectively, ``Nasdaq Entities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78119 (June 21,
2016), 81 FR 41611 (June 27, 2016) (SR-ISE-2016-11; SR-ISE Gemini-
2016-05; SR-ISE Mercury-2016-10) (Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of Proposed Rule Changes, Each as Modified by Amendment No.
1 Thereto, Relating to a Corporate Transaction in Which Nasdaq, Inc.
Will Become the Indirect Parent of ISE, ISE Gemini, and ISE
Mercury).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is planning to conform the chapters of the various
Nasdaq Entity rulebooks for efficiency, and conformity of certain
Nasdaq Entity processes. The Exchange believes that aligning the rules
of the Nasdaq Entities will assist market participants in navigating
the various rulebooks. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a
shell structure which would reside alongside the current rulebook. The
proposed shell would outline the various chapters of the future
rulebook and contains new chapter numbering. A similar shell would be
filed to add the same structure to each of the other Nasdaq Entities.
The proposed chapters would be similar for each shell filed for each of
the Nasdaq Entities. In subsequent rule changes, each of the Nasdaq
Entities would file rule changes to move their current rules into the
various chapters of the proposed shells for all six markets and delete
the migrated rule from the current location in the Rulebook.\4\ The
proposed shell would contain a general rule section and product
specific section, in this case options, which would encompass all the
rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ When relocating the current rule text into the new shell,
the Exchange shall not amend the rule text but simply move existing
rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes this new structure would align the Nasdaq
Entities' rulebooks for ease of use by Members, who are members of more
than one Nasdaq Entity. This proposal would not amend the current
Rulebook and is therefore not a substantive change. A Member would
continue to be able to view the current Rulebook alongside the proposed
reorganized Rulebook. Subsequent rule changes will be filed to move the
rule text into the shell Rulebook.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, 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,
by starting the process of organizing its rules in a manner which is
clear and consistent across the Nasdaq Entities. The Exchange believes
that coordinating the chapters of the rulebooks among the Nasdaq
Entities will provide Members, who are members of more than one Nasdaq
Entity, with consistency and ease of reference in locating rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes do not
impose a burden on competition because the proposed amendments are non-
substantive, are intended to start the process to organize the rules of
the Exchange in a manner that will be more user-friendly to Nasdaq
Entity members.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \9\ 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 operative delay so that the proposed rule change will
become operative upon filing. The Exchange states that such waiver will
enable the Exchange to start the process to reorganize the rulebooks of
the Nasdaq Entities. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because the proposal does not raise any novel issues
and waiver will allow the Exchange to begin the reorganization of its
Rulebook without delay. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in

the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii)
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2017-26 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-MRX-2017-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2017-26, and should be
submitted on or before December 26, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26126 Filed 12-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1-7]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28095]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 11

[Docket No. RM16-19-000; Order No. 838]

Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands in Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Power Act requires hydropower licensees to
recompense the United States for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of
federal lands. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
assesses annual charges for the use of federal lands through its
regulations concerning charges for the use of government lands. In this
Final Rule, the Commission revises the per-acre land value component of
its methodology for calculating these annual charges for hydropower
projects located in Alaska. Pursuant to the Final Rule, the Commission
will calculate a statewide per-acre land value for hydropower lands in
Alaska. The Commission will use this statewide per-acre land value,
rather than a regional per-acre land value, to calculate annual charges
for use of federal lands for all hydropower projects in Alaska, except
those located in the Aleutian Islands Area.

DATES: This rule will become effective February 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tara DiJohn (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]
Norman Richardson (Technical Information), Office of the Executive
Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                         Paragraph Nos.

I. Background........................................                  2
    A. Order No. 774.................................                  4
        1. Per-Acre Land Value.......................                  6
        2. Per-Acre Land Value for Alaska............                  8
    B. Fiscal Year 2016 Fee Schedule.................                 11
    C. Petition for Rulemaking.......................                 12
    D. Notice of Inquiry.............................                 15
    E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.................                 22
II. Discussion.......................................                 27
    A. Calculation of Statewide Per-Acre Value.......                 28
    B. Application of Statewide Per-Acre Value.......                 35
    C. Effective Date of Statewide Per-Acre Value....                 36
III. Regulatory Requirements.........................                 37
    A. Information Collection Statement..............                 37
    B. Environmental Analysis........................                 38
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act....................                 39
    D. Document Availability.........................                 45
    E. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.                 48

Order No. 838

Final Rule

(Issued December 21, 2017)
    1. The Federal Power Act (FPA) requires hydropower licensees that
use federal lands to compensate the United States for the use,
occupancy, and enjoyment of federal lands.\1\ Currently, the Commission
uses a fee schedule, based on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) methodology for calculating rental rates for linear rights of
way, to calculate annual charges for use of federal lands. The
Commission's fee schedule identifies a fee for each county or
geographic area, which is the product of four components: A per-acre
land value, an encumbrance factor, a rate of return, and an annual
adjustment factor. The per-acre land value for a particular county or
geographic area (i.e., a regional per-acre land value) is determined
using the average per-acre land value identified by the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Census. This Final Rule amends
part 11 of the Commission's regulations and implements the use of a
revised per-acre land value component for calculating these annual
charges for hydropower projects located in Alaska. Under the Final
Rule, the Commission will use a statewide per-acre land value, rather
than a regional per-acre land value, to calculate annual charges for
use of federal lands for all hydropower projects in Alaska, except
those located in the Aleutian Islands Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 803(e)(1) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Section 10(e)(1) of the FPA requires Commission hydropower
licensees using federal lands to pay reasonable annual charges, as
determined by the Commission, to recompense the United States for the
use and occupancy of its lands.\2\ While the Commission may

periodically adjust these charges, it must seek to avoid increasing the
price to power consumers by such charges.\3\ In other words, licensees
that use and occupy federal lands for project purposes must compensate
the United States through payment of an annual fee, to be established
by the Commission.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 803(e)(1) (2012). Section 10(e)(1) also requires
licensees to reimburse the United States for the costs of
administering Part I of the FPA. Those charges are calculated and
billed separately from the federal land use charges, and are not the
subject of this rulemaking.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Pursuant to FPA section 17(a), 16 U.S.C. 810(a) (2012), the
fees collected for use of government lands are allocated as follows:
12.5 percent is paid into the Treasury of the United States, 50
percent is paid into the federal reclamation fund, and 37.5 percent
is paid into the treasuries of the states in which particular
projects are located. No part of the fees discussed in this
rulemaking is used to fund the Commission's operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission has adopted various methods over the years to
accomplish this statutory directive.\5\ Currently, the Commission uses
a fee schedule method, based on land values published in the NASS
Census, to calculate annual charges for use of government lands. The
Commission adopted this approach in a final rule issued on January 12,
2013.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands, Order No.
774, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,341, at PP 3-20 (2013) (cross-
referenced at 142 FERC ] 61,045) (examining the myriad methods the
Commission has used or considered since 1937 for assessing annual
charges for the use of government lands).
    \6\ See generally, Order No. 774, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Order No. 774

    4. In Order No. 774, the Commission adopted a fee schedule method
for calculating annual charges for use of government lands, based on
BLM's methodology for calculating rental rates for linear rights of
way. Pursuant to Sec.  11.2 of the Commission's regulations, the
Commission publishes an annual fee schedule which lists per-acre rental
fees by county or geographic area.\7\ To calculate a licensee's annual
charge for use of government lands, the Commission multiplies the
applicable county or geographic area per-acre fee identified in the fee
schedule by the number of federal acres used by the hydroelectric
project, as reported by that licensee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 18 CFR 11.2 (2017). The fee schedule is published annually
as part of appendix A to part 11 of the Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The per-acre rental fee for a particular county or geographic
area is calculated by multiplying four components: (1) A per-acre land
value; (2) an encumbrance factor; (3) a rate of return; and (4) an
annual adjustment factor.
1. Per-Acre Land Value
    6. The first component--the per-acre land value--is based on
average per-acre land values published in the NASS Census. The per-acre
value for a particular county or geographic area is identified using
the corresponding NASS-published per-acre ``land and buildings''
value.\8\ This per-acre value is then reduced by the sum of a state-
specific modifier (to remove the value of irrigated lands) and seven
percent (to remove the value of buildings or other improvements). The
end result is the adjusted per-acre land value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NASS Census ``land and buildings'' category is a
combination of all land use categories in the NASS Census, including
croplands (irrigated and non-irrigated), pastureland/rangeland,
woodland, and ``other'' (roads, ponds, wasteland, and land
encumbered by non-commercial/non-residential buildings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The NASS Census is conducted every five years, with an 18-month
delay before the census data is published. The Commission incorporates
another 18-month delay to account for revisions, consistent with BLM's
implementation of its 2008 rule. Therefore, the Commission based its
2011-2015 fee schedules on data from the 2007 NASS Census. The
Commission's 2016-2020 fee schedules will be based on data from the
2012 NASS Census; the 2021-2025 fee schedules will be based on data
from the 2017 NASS Census; the 2026-2030 fee schedules will be based on
data from the 2022 NASS Census; and so on. State-specific adjustments
to the per-acre land values are performed in the first year that data
from a new NASS Census are used, and will remain the same until the
subsequent NASS Census data are used to calculate the forthcoming set
of fee schedules.
2. Per-Acre Land Value for Alaska
    8. With regard to Alaska, Order No. 774 explained that the final
rule would adopt BLM's approach to per-acre land values by designating
lands in Alaska as part of one of the five NASS Census geographic area
identifiers: The Aleutian Islands Area, the Anchorage Area, the
Fairbanks Area, the Juneau Area, or the Kenai Peninsula Area. Under
BLM's 2008 rule, the Aleutian Islands Area includes all lands within
the Aleutian Islands chain; the Fairbanks Area includes all lands
within the BLM Fairbanks District boundaries; the Kenai Peninsula Area
includes all lands within the BLM Anchorage District boundaries
excluding the Aleutian Islands chain, the Anchorage Area, and, the
Juneau Area; the Anchorage Area includes all lands within the
Municipality of Anchorage; and the Juneau Area includes all lands
within downtown Juneau (i.e., voting precincts 1, 2, and 3).
    9. Several commenters asserted that a per-acre statewide value, a
category also reported by the NASS Census, should be used to establish
assessments for federal land in Alaska.\9\ Order No. 774 considered the
arguments raised in support of a statewide per-acre value. In
particular, several commenters asserted that it is inappropriate to use
regional per-acre values for Alaska because Alaska does not use county
designations; the number of farms surveyed for the NASS Census in the
entire state of Alaska is less than the number of farms surveyed in
most counties in the lower-48 states; and, certain per-acre land values
near Anchorage and Juneau are very high, resulting in a substantial
increase in annual charges for the use of government lands by
hydropower licensees in these areas. However, the Commission ultimately
concluded that the commenters had not advanced a sufficient explanation
for why it was more appropriate to use a statewide per-acre value for
Alaska, rather than the smallest NASS Census defined area for Alaska--
the geographic area identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Order No. 774, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,341 at P 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Although the Commission rejected the use of a statewide per-
acre land value for Alaska in Order No. 774, the Commission clarified
that it would not use rates based on the Anchorage Area and the Juneau
Area values to assess annual land use charges ``because these high,
urban-based rates would not reasonably reflect the value of government
lands on which hydropower projects are located.'' \10\ Instead, for
purposes of determining a per-acre land value, the Commission decided
to apply the Kenai Peninsula Area per-acre value for projects located
in the Anchorage Area or the Juneau Area. Therefore, Order No. 774
explained that projects in Alaska would be assessed the Aleutian
Islands Area per-acre land value if located in the Aleutian Islands
chain, the Fairbanks Area per-acre land value if located in the
Fairbanks BLM District, or the Kenai Peninsula Area per-acre land value
if located in the Anchorage BLM District excluding the Aleutian Islands
chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. P 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fiscal Year 2016 Fee Schedule

    11. The Commission used the 2012 NASS Census data to calculate its
fee schedule for the first time in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. Due to per-
acre land value

increases in the 2012 NASS Census data, hydropower projects located in
certain geographic areas in Alaska experienced a significant increase
in federal land use charges when compared to the rates assessed in FY
2015.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In the 2012 NASS Census, changes in land values in other
parts of the country varied widely: Some rose significantly, some
rose by relatively small amounts, and some decreased.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Petition for Rulemaking

    12. On June 6, 2016, the Alaska Federal Land Fees Group, comprising
six hydroelectric licensees with projects in Alaska (Alaska Group),\12\
petitioned the Commission to conduct a rulemaking to revise its method
of calculating federal land use charges for hydropower projects in
Alaska. The Alaska Group's petition focused solely on the first
component of the Commission's fee schedule--the per-acre land value--
and requested that the Commission: (1) Calculate an adjusted statewide
average per-acre land value for Alaska and (2) apply this adjusted
statewide average per-acre fee to all projects in Alaska, except those
located in the Aleutian Islands area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Alaska Electric Light and Power, Bradley Lake Project
Management Committee (on behalf of licensee Alaska Energy
Authority), Chugach Electric Association, the Ketchikan Public
Utilities, Copper Valley Electric Association, and Southeast Alaska
Power Agency.
    \13\ The Alaska Group requests that any project located in the
Aleutian Islands Area continue to be assessed annual charges for use
of government lands based on a regional per-acre land value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In support of this proposal, the Alaska Group stated that due
to the small number of farms (and associated agricultural acreage) that
contribute to the data compiled in the NASS Census, there is
insufficient data in any individual Alaska area (with the exception of
the Aleutian Islands) \14\ to produce a fair estimate of land values
within that area. Because there are so few farms outside of the
Aleutian Islands Area, the Alaska Group indicated that the per-acre
land values in the other four geographic areas of Alaska are extremely
sensitive to any changes in the self-reported farm data compiled by the
NASS Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Alaska Group contended that because the Aleutian
Islands Area contains the greatest amount of farmland in the state
(668,016 acres), the NASS Census data for the Aleutian Islands Area
is ``robust, reliable, and an accurate estimate of fair market
value.'' Alaska Group's June 6, 2016 Petition for Rulemaking at 18.
Therefore, the Alaska Group requested that the proposed statewide
per-acre land value be applied to all hydropower projects located in
Alaska, except those projects located in the Aleutian Islands Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. For these reasons, the Alaska Group asserted that an adjusted
statewide per-acre land value would better reflect the diverse
topography of the state and insulate against land value fluctuations
caused by individual changes in farm data. The Alaska Group stated that
this method would produce a more accurate estimate of the fair market
value of federal lands in Alaska.

D. Notice of Inquiry

    15. On November 17, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry
soliciting input on a narrow question related to its current method for
calculating annual charges for the use of government lands--whether
regional per-acre land values based on data published in the NASS
Census ``land and buildings'' category result in reasonably accurate
land valuations for projects that occupy federal lands in Alaska.\15\
Specifically, the Commission asked whether it should: (1) Use a
statewide per-acre land value rather than a regional per-acre land
value to calculate the adjusted per-acre land value for projects that
occupy federal lands in Alaska; (2) apply such a statewide per-acre
land value to (i) all projects in Alaska, or (ii) all projects in
Alaska except those located in the Aleutian Islands Area; and (3) use
only certain geographic regions of Alaska to calculate such a statewide
per-acre land value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands in Alaska, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,579 (2016) (NOI). The NOI was published in the
Federal Register on November 25, 2016. 81 FR 85173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. In addition, the Notice of Inquiry encouraged commenters to
submit alternative proposals for determining reasonably accurate per-
acre land values for projects in Alaska, provided that any proffered
alternatives were grounded in the NASS Census data. The notice also
invited federal land management agencies to comment on how they would
view reductions in annual charges for the lands they administer.
    17. In response to the Notice of Inquiry, seven entities filed
comments, including several Alaska licensees, a U.S. senator, the U.S.
Forest Service (Forest Service), and two individuals.
    18. The Alaska Group's comments reiterated its position that the
Commission should adopt a statewide per-acre land value for all
hydropower projects in Alaska, and apply the statewide per-acre value
to all projects in Alaska, except those located in the Aleutian Islands
Area. Similarly, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and Homer Electric, an
electric distribution cooperative in the Kenai Peninsula, urged the
Commission to adopt a statewide per-acre land value for Alaska. These
commenters echoed concerns that the NASS Census data fails to provide
an accurate accounting of land values in Alaska.
    19. Kodiak Electric, a licensee of a hydropower project located in
the Aleutian Islands Area, stated that the regional per-acre land
values published in the NASS Census result in reasonably accurate land
valuations for hydropower lands in the Aleutian Islands Area. Citing
the large number of agricultural acreage reported by the NASS Census
for the Aleutian Islands Area, Kodiak Electric recommended that any
statewide per-acre land value for Alaska, if adopted, not be applied to
projects located in the Aleutian Islands Area.
    20. The Forest Service was the only commenter to provide
alternative proposals for Commission consideration. Due to the small
number of farms in Alaska, the Forest Service cautioned against the use
of a fee schedule based on NASS Census data. Instead, the Forest
Service recommended that the Commission consider calculating federal
land charges for Alaska using BLM's ``Minimum Rent Schedule for BLM
Land Use Authorizations in Alaska 2015'' or a fee based on power
generated, similar to BLM's solar fee schedule.
    21. Two individuals urged the Commission to decline the request to
alter its current method for calculating federal land use charges for
hydropower projects in Alaska. They expressed concern that the use of a
statewide per-acre land value might result in the under-collection of
reasonable annual charges, and questioned whether the Alaska Group
sufficiently demonstrated that a statewide per-acre value would be more
accurate than a regional per-acre land value.

E. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    22. In an August 17, 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the
Commission proposed to adopt the use of a statewide per-acre land
value, rather than a regional per-acre land value, for the purposes of
calculating annual charges for hydropower projects that occupy federal
lands in Alaska.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands in Alaska, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 32,722 (2017) (NOPR). The NOPR was published in the
Federal Register on August 31, 2017. 82 FR 41359.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. To calculate a statewide per-acre land value for Alaska, the
NOPR proposed that the Commission would average the data published in
the ``land and buildings'' category of the NASS Census for two
geographic areas: The Kenai Peninsula Area and the Fairbanks

Area.\17\ The proposed rule explained that, pursuant to the
Commission's current methodology, the statewide per-acre value would be
reduced by the sum of Alaska's state-specific reduction to remove the
value of irrigated lands and a seven percent reduction to remove the
value of buildings. The Commission would then apply the resulting
adjusted statewide per-acre land value to all hydropower projects in
Alaska except for projects located in the Aleutian Islands Area. The
NOPR also stated that the Commission would continue to apply the
regional per-acre land value for the Aleutian Islands Area.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As we noted earlier, the Commission does not use the NASS
Census data from the Anchorage Area or the Juneau Area for the
purpose of determining per-acre land values because the
predominantly high, urban-based rates do not reasonably reflect the
value of government lands on which hydropower projects are located.
See supra P 9.
    \18\ As explained in the NOPR, the Commission is satisfied that
the use of the regional per-acre land value for the Aleutian Islands
Area results in reasonably accurate land values due to the large
amount of farmland acreage represented in the NASS Census data for
this particular geographic area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The proposed rule represented an effort to respond to the
issues identified by the petitioners--the prevalence of federal lands
in Alaska, the sparse amount of agricultural acreage reflected in the
NASS Census, and the increase in annual charges that resulted when the
Commission began using data from the 2012 NASS Census. Combining the
value of the farmland acreage in the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks
Areas to calculate a statewide per-acre land value, as proposed in the
NOPR, would result in a larger, more robust data set that will be less
prone to future fluctuation due to changes in the level of
participation in NASS Census data reporting or specific anomalies in
the data reported.
    25. The NOPR did not propose to adopt the Alaska Group's suggestion
of including Aleutian Islands Area values in calculating a statewide
per-acre land value to be applied to hydropower projects located
outside of the Aleutian Islands Area, because those values are lower
than land values elsewhere in the state.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,722 at P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. The NOPR also evaluated two alternative proposals recommended
by the Forest Service: (i) A method based on the 2015 Minimum Rent
Schedule for BLM Land Use Authorizations in Alaska; \20\ and (ii) a fee
based on power generated, similar to BLM's solar fee schedule.\21\
Because these alternative proposals would likely result in higher per-
acre land fees for Alaska or would rely on practices the Commission has
previously rejected, the Commission declined to consider these
alternatives further.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See generally BLM, Rent for Remote Non-Linear Rights-of-
Way, Permits and Leases, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-ak-2015-010
(instruction memorandum describing the U.S. Department of the
Interior--Office of Valuation Services' April 2015 Minimum Rent
Analysis & Schedule, which provides guidance and a rental schedule
for land use authorizations of up to 25 acres across each of BLM's
district and field offices in Alaska).
    \21\ See Competitive Processes, Terms, and Conditions for
Leasing Public Lands for Solar and Wind Energy Development and
Technical Changes and Corrections, 81 FR 92122, 92217-18 (December
19, 2016) (to be codified at 43 CFR parts 2800 and 2880).
    \22\ See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,722 at PP 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    27. In this Final Rule, the Commission revises the per-acre land
value component of its methodology for calculating annual charges for
the use of federal lands by hydropower licensees in Alaska, and amends
part 11 of its regulations accordingly. As proposed in the NOPR, the
Commission will calculate a statewide per-acre land value for
hydropower lands in Alaska. The Commission will use this statewide per-
acre land value, rather than a regional per-acre land value, to
calculate annual charges for use of federal lands for all hydropower
projects in Alaska, except those located in the Aleutian Islands Area.

A. Calculation of Statewide Per-Acre Value

    28. The Alaska Group filed comments in support of the Commission's
proposal to use a statewide per-acre land value to calculate federal
land charges for hydropower projects in Alaska. The Alaska Group urges
the Commission to adopt the proposal set forth in the NOPR, with three
``refinements.'' First, the Alaska Group requests that the Commission
issue the Final Rule with an effective date of FY 2016 and issue
refunds to any Alaska licensee that paid FY 2016 federal land use
charges in excess of the amount due under the Final Rule's revised
calculation method. Second, the Alaska Group asks the Commission to
reconsider its decision to exclude the Aleutian Islands Area from its
calculation of a statewide per-acre land value. Third, the Alaska Group
reasserts its argument that the use of NASS Census data does not result
in fair or accurate valuations of federal lands on which hydropower
projects are located, contending that the NASS Census data
significantly overvalues federal lands in most of Alaska. While
expressing support for the NOPR, the Alaska Group seeks to reserve the
right to petition for further adjustments to the Commission's method
for calculating federal land use charges for hydropower projects
located in Alaska.
    29. Jon Griffiths, a public policy research assistant at the George
Washington University, expresses support for the NOPR's proposal to
adopt a statewide per-acre land value for Alaska, but recommends that
the statewide value be based on an average of the NASS Census data for
all five geographic areas in Alaska, rather than just the Fairbanks and
Kenai Peninsula Areas. In particular, Mr. Griffiths recommends that the
Commission include the Anchorage Area in its calculation of a statewide
per-acre land value because it has the largest number of agricultural
properties in Alaska. In addition, Mr. Griffiths observes that
including all five geographic areas would result in a more robust and
representative data set. Finally, Mr. Griffiths asserts that the NOPR's
proposal amounts to a federal subsidy for hydropower projects because
licensees are paying for land at a value less than its current worth.
    30. Aurora Taylor, an Alaska resident, contends that the use of
NASS Census data is an inaccurate land pricing method. She questions
whether the use of a statewide per-acre land value--calculated by
averaging NASS Census data from only two geographic areas (i.e.,
Fairbanks and Kenai Peninsula Areas)--would result in a more accurate
and stable land valuation method for Alaska.\23\ Ms. Taylor also
suggests that the Commission consider an alternative fee structure
based on the amount of energy generated by the project. However, as
noted in the NOPR, the Commission previously rejected as unreasonable
proposals based on a project's power capacity, generation, or sales
revenue because such fees would result in a royalty as if the occupied
federal lands themselves were producing power.\24\ The Commission has
explained that this type of fee

schedule would overlook the fact that power output is the result of
several factors (e.g., water rights, head, project structures), not
just the acreage of the federal lands involved.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Ms. Taylor also expresses concern that the Commission's
current method for calculating federal land use charges fails to
account for the environmental costs of damming rivers. In response,
the Commission explains that these charges represent a rental fee
for the licensee's use of federal acreage. Therefore, it is
reasonable for the Commission to seek to establish a fair market
rate for the use of federal acreage, rather than a rate based on
quantifying environmental costs. In any event, the Commission
evaluates the environmental impacts of a proposed hydropower project
during the licensing decision, and has noted that it is not possible
to assign dollar values to environmental impacts. See Great Northern
Paper, Inc., 85 FERC ] 61,316, at 62,244-45 (1998), aff'd,
Conservation Law Foundation v. FERC, 216 F.3d 41, 47-48 (D.C. Cir.
2000).
    \24\ See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,722 at P 29 n.20.
    \25\ See Annual Charges for the Use of Government Lands, FERC
Stats. & Regs ] 32,684, at P 9 (2011) (citing Revision of the
Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for Administering Part I of
the Federal Power Act and to the Methodology for Assessing Federal
Land Use Charges, Order No. 469, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,741, at
30,589-90 (1987)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. The Final Rule adopts the same revised calculation method
proposed in the NOPR. To calculate a statewide per-acre land value, the
Commission will divide the total estimated market value by the total
agricultural acreage (published in the ``land and buildings'' category
of the NASS Census) for the Kenai Peninsula Area and the Fairbanks Area
to arrive at an average per-acre land and building value. Pursuant to
the Commission's current methodology, the Commission will adjust the
resulting per-acre value by Alaska's state-specific reduction to remove
the value of irrigated lands, as well as a seven percent reduction to
remove the value of buildings (i.e., the adjusted per-acre land value).
The Commission will apply this adjusted statewide per-acre land value
to all hydropower projects in Alaska except those located in the
Aleutian Islands chain. Any project located in the Aleutian Islands
chain will continue to be assessed the Aleutian Islands Area per-acre
land value.
    32. Two commenters recommended that the Commission calculate the
statewide per-acre land value for Alaska using data from all five
geographic areas identified in the NASS Census. One commented that the
failure to incorporate data from all regions in Alaska, including the
Anchorage and Juneau Areas, undervalues federal lands and amounts to a
federal subsidy for hydropower projects. However, in accordance with
the policy adopted in Order No. 774, the Commission has never used the
NASS Census data from the Anchorage Area or the Juneau Area for the
purposes of determining per-acre land values because the predominately
high, urban-based rates do not reasonably reflect the value of
government lands on which hydropower projects are located. No evidence
has been provided during the course of this rulemaking that leads the
Commission to reconsider this decision. Moreover, using these high,
urban-based rates to calculate a statewide per-acre value would likely
overvalue hydropower lands and artificially inflate federal land use
charges.
    33. Similarly, the Commission is not persuaded by the Alaska
Group's call to include data from the Aleutian Islands Area to
calculate a statewide per-acre land value. The Alaska Group asks the
Commission to use Aleutian Islands Area data to calculate the statewide
per-acre value, but not apply the resulting statewide value to projects
in the Aleutian Islands Area, which would dramatically lower the
resulting statewide value, while maintaining the use of the Aleutian
Islands Area's extremely low regional per-acre value ($1.02 per acre,
adjusted) for projects in the Aleutian Islands Area. This inconsistent
approach would undervalue hydropower lands and artificially deflate
federal land use charges across the state. Commission staff compared
the FY 2017 per-acre rates for hydropower projects located in the Kenai
Peninsula Area under the Commission's current methodology ($57.97), the
NOPR's proposal ($36.53), and the Alaska Group's proposal ($6.75).\26\
The drastic decrease between the NOPR's proposal and the Alaska Group's
proposal directly corresponds to the inclusion of the Aleutian Islands
Area data. We are not convinced that this lower rate would result in
fair compensation to the United States and the taxpayers for the use of
public lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The NOPR's proposed calculation results in a $36.53
adjusted per-acre land value rate for FY 2017, which represents an
approximate 9 percent increase from the FY 2015 rate for the Kenai
Peninsula Area ($33.28). FY 2015 was the last year the Commission
used data from the 2007 NASS Census to calculate federal land use
charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. We are satisfied that a statewide per-acre value, based on data
from the Kenai Peninsula and Fairbanks Areas, is an appropriate
response to the Alaska Group's Alaska-specific concerns. The revised
calculation method uses a larger data set of agricultural acreage that
will be better insulated from fluctuation between census years. It also
excludes extreme land values that would artificially overvalue or
undervalue hydropower lands and preserves the administrative efficiency
benefits of using a publicly available index of land values to
calculate rates. Therefore, on balance, the Commission finds that the
Final Rule's revised calculation method results in a reasonable
approximation of per-acre land values for hydropower lands in
Alaska.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ In its comments on the NOPR, the Alaska Group stated that
it reserves the right to petition the Commission for future
adjustments to the land valuation method for federal lands in
Alaska. The Commission will consider, but may not act on, future
petitions requesting it to revise its method for calculating federal
land use charges for hydropower projects located in Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Application of Statewide Per-Acre Value

    35. Kodiak Electric filed comments on the NOPR, reiterating its
assertion that the regional per-acre land value results in a reasonably
accurate land valuation for hydropower lands in the Aleutian Islands
Area. Kodiak Electric expresses support for the NOPR's proposal to
continue to apply the regional per-acre land value, rather than the
statewide per-acre land value, for projects located in the Aleutian
Islands Area. Pursuant to the Final Rule, the Commission will apply the
statewide per-acre land value to all hydropower projects located in
Alaska, except those located in the Aleutian Islands Area. For projects
located in the Aleutian Islands Area, the Commission will continue to
apply the regional per-acre land value when calculating federal land
use charges.

C. Effective Date of Statewide Per-Acre Value

    36. The Alaska Group contends that the effective date of the Final
Rule should be FY 2016, and urges the Commission to issue refunds to
any Alaska licensee that paid FY 2016 federal land use charges in
excess of the amount that would be due under the Final Rule's revised
calculation method. We deny this request. The Commission previously
considered and rejected various legal and policy arguments made by the
Alaska Group on behalf of its member licensees seeking partial refunds
of their FY 2016 federal land use charges because they claimed such
charges were unreasonable.\28\ The members of the Alaska Group elected
not to seek judicial review of this decision, such that an attack on it
now is untimely. Further, they have not asserted, let alone proved,
that the past payments resulted in any hardship to the licensees in
question. Accordingly, we will not revisit those arguments here. The
Final Rule's revised calculation method, set forth in Sec.
11.2(c)(1)(iv) of the Commission's regulations, will be used to
calculate any federal land use bills for Alaska licensees that are
issued on or after the effective date of this Final Rule (i.e., FY 2017
bills, onward).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Alaska Elec. Light & Power, 157 FERC ] 61,111 (2016)
(finding the calculation of the Alaska Group's FY 2016 federal land
use charges reasonable, and not a change in Commission procedure or
policy). The Alaska Group did not appeal the Commission's order
denying rehearing of this issue. Additionally, the decision to adopt
a revised calculation method for projects in Alaska does not negate
the Commission's determination that the FY 2016 federal land use
charges were reasonable and calculated appropriately.

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

III. Regulatory Requirements

A. Information Collection Statement

    37. The Paperwork Reduction Act \29\ requires each federal agency
to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval
before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more
persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB
regulations require approval of certain information collection
requirements contained in final rules published in the Federal
Register.\30\ This rule does not impose or alter existing reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on applicable entities as defined by the
Paperwork Reduction Act.\31\ As a result, this rule does not trigger
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521 (2012).
    \30\ See 5 CFR 1320.12 (2017).
    \31\ 44 U.S.C. 3502(2)-(3) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Environmental Analysis

    38. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant effect on the human environment.\32\ Commission
actions concerning annual charges are categorically exempt from this
requirement.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \33\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(11) (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    39. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \34\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that
accomplish the stated objectives of a rulemaking and minimize any
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \35\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size
Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business.\36\
The SBA revised its size standard for electric utilities (effective
January 22, 2014) from a standard based on megawatt hours to a standard
based on the number of employees, including affiliates.\37\ Under SBA's
current size standards, a hydroelectric generator is small if,
including its affiliates, it employs 500 or fewer people.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 13 CFR 121.101 (2017).
    \37\ SBA Final Rule on ``Small Business Size Standards:
Utilities,'' 78 FR 77343 (Dec. 23, 2013).
    \38\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Section 10(e)(1) of the FPA requires that the Commission fix a
reasonable annual charge for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of
federal lands by hydropower licensees. To date, the Commission has
issued 21 active licenses that occupy federal lands in Alaska to 15
discrete entities. Therefore, the Final Rule will apply to a total of
15 entities. Of these 15 entities, 13 entities would be impacted by the
Final Rule because they hold licenses that occupy federal lands in the
Kenai Peninsula, Fairbanks, Juneau, or Anchorage Areas.\39\ The Final
Rule adopts the use of a statewide per-acre land value, rather than a
regional per-acre land value, for the purposes of calculating annual
charges for the use of federal lands in Alaska. The Commission will
apply the statewide per-acre land value to all hydropower projects in
Alaska, except those located in the Aleutian Islands Area. The
Commission will continue to apply the regional per-acre land value for
projects located in the Aleutian Islands Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ We note that six of the 13 affected licensees are members
of the Alaska Group, which petitioned the Commission to revise its
methodology for calculating annual charges for use of federal lands
by establishing a statewide per-acre land value for Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. Based on a review of the 13 licensees that would be impacted by
the Final Rule, we estimate that most, if not all, are small entities
under the SBA definition. These 13 licensees include utilities, non-
for-profit electric cooperatives, cities, and companies.
    43. Any impact on these small entities would not be significant.
Under the Final Rule, a statewide per-acre land value for hydropower
lands in Alaska would be calculated based on a larger agricultural data
set, resulting in land values that will be less prone to future
fluctuation caused by changes in census data reporting. For Fiscal Year
(FY) 2017, the statewide per-acre rate will be lower than the regional
per-acre rates that were assessed in FY 2016 for the majority of active
licenses in Alaska (other than those located in the Aleutian Islands
Area). Accordingly, the 13 affected licensees' federal land use charges
for FY 2017 will be lower than the total charges they should have paid
in the previous fiscal year based on project geography.\40\ The use of
a statewide per-acre rate will also result in lower FY 2017 charges for
each of the 13 affected licensees compared to the FY 2017 charges they
would be assessed under the regional per-acre value method.
Consequently, the Final Rule should not impose a significant economic
impact on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ During this rulemaking proceeding, Commission staff
identified two affected licensees (P-2230 and P-10773) that were
assessed federal land use charges in FY 2013-2016 based on an
incorrect per-acre rate--an ``All Areas'' rate, rather than the
appropriate Kenai Peninsula Area rate--resulting in lower total
charges during this four year period. Under the Final Rule, these
two licensees will pay charges based on the statewide per-acre land
value. Therefore, while their FY 2017 charges will increase compared
to the FY 2016, these two licensees have been undercharged since FY
2013 and will have lower FY 2017 charges under the Final Rule than
they would under the Commission's current methodology using the
appropriate per-acre land value (i.e., Kenai Peninsula Area rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the
Commission certifies that this Final Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Document Availability

    45. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    46. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    47. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
[email protected].

E. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    48. This regulation is effective February 1, 2018. The Commission
has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 251 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.\41\ This rule is being
submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2012).

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

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 11

    Dams, Electric power, Indians--lands, Public lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
    Issued: December 21, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission amends part 11, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 11--ANNUAL CHARGES UNDER PART I OF THE FEDERAL POWER ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 792-828c; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. In Sec.  11.2, add paragraph (c)(1)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  11.2   Use of government lands.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) For all geographic areas in Alaska except for the Aleutian
Islands Area, the Commission will calculate a statewide per-acre value
based on the average per-acre land and building values published in the
NASS Census for the Kenai Peninsula Area and the Fairbanks Area. This
statewide per-acre value will be reduced by the sum of the state-
specific modifier and seven percent. The resulting adjusted statewide
per-acre value will be applied to all projects located in Alaska,
except for projects located in the Aleutian Island Area.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-28095 Filed 12-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71504-71505]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27863]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-072, OMB Control No. 3235-0076]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form D

    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'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form D (17 CFR 239.500) is a notice of sales filed by issuers
making an offering of securities in reliance on an exemption under
Regulation D (17 CFR 230.501 et seq.) or Section 4(a)(5) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d(a)(5)). Regulation D sets forth
rules governing the limited offer and sale of securities without
Securities Act registration. The purpose of Form D is to collect
empirical data, which provides a continuing basis for action by the
Commission either in terms of amending existing rules and regulations
or proposing new ones. In addition, the Form D allows the Commission to
elicit information necessary in assessing the effectiveness of
Regulation D (17 CFR 230.501 et seq.) and Section 4(6) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77d(6)) as capital-raising devices
for all businesses. Approximately 23,571 issuers file Form D and it
takes approximately 4 hours per response. We estimate that 25% of 4
hours per response (1 hour per response) is prepared by the issuer for
an annual reporting burden 23,571 hours (1 hour per response x 23,571
responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of
information

is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the
accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and
suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 19, 2019.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27863 Filed 12-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 54652-54653]
[DOCID:fr18se06-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 12, 2006.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Transfer of License.
    b. Project No.(s): 2232-521; 2331-034; 2332-040; 2503-106; 2601-
010; 2602-011; 2603-015; 2619-015; 2686-050; 2692-040; 2694-021; 2698-
044, and 2740-048.
    c. Date Filed: August 25, 2006.
    d. Applicants: Duke Energy Corporation (DEC) and Duke Power Company
LLC (DPCLLC).
    e. Name and Location of Project(s): (P-2232) The Catawba-Wateree
Project located on the Catawba River in Alexander, Burke, Caldwell,
Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell, Mecklenburg Counties,
North Carolina and on the Catawba-Wateree River in Chester, Fairfield,
Kershaw, Lancaster and York Counties, SC; (P-2331) Ninety-Nine Islands
Project, located on Broad River, Cherokee Co., SC; (P-2332) Gaston
Shoals Project, located on Broad River, Cherokee Co., SC ; (P-2503)
Keowee-Toxaway Project, located on Keowee, Little, Whitewater, Toxaway,
Thompson and Horsepasture Rivers, in Oconee and Pickens Counties, SC
and Translyvania County, NC.; (P-2601) Bryson Project, located on
Oconaluftee River, Swain County, NC; (P-2602) Dillsboro Project,
located on Tuckasegee River, Jackson Co., NC; (P-2603) Franklin
Project, located on Little Tennessee River, Macon County, NC; (P-2619)
Mission Project located on the Hiwassee River, Clay County, NC; (P-
2686) West Fork Project located on the West Fork Tuckasegee River,
Jackson County, NC; (P-2692) Nantahala Project located on Nantahala
River, Dicks Creek and White Oak Creek, in Clay and Macon Counties, NC;
(P-2694) Queens Creek Project located on Queens Creek, near the Town of
Topton, Macon County, NC; (P-2698) East Fork Project located on the
East Fork Tuckasegee River, Jackson County, NC; and (P-2740) Bad Creek
Project located on the Bad and West Bad Creeks, Oconee County, SC.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    g. Applicant Contacts: For DEC: Garry S. Rice, Associate General
Counsel, Duke Energy Corporation, 526 South Church Street, Charlotte,
NC 28202,<PHONE_NUMBER>. John A. Whittaker, IV, Winston & Strawn LLP,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817,<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
DPCLLC: Jeffrey G. Lineberger, Manager, Hydro Licensing, Duke Power
Company LLC, P.O. Box 1006, Mail Code EC12Y, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006,
(704) 382-5942.
    h. FERC Contact: Etta L. Foster<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: October 12, 2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper, see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-2232-521; P-2331-034; P-2332-040; P-2503-106; P-2601-010; P-
2602-011; P-2603-015; P-2619-015; P-2686-050; P-2692-040; P-2694-021;
P-2698-044, or P-2740-048) on any comments, protests, or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing a document with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in 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 documents on that resource agency.
    j. Description of Application: Applicants request approval, under
section 8 of the Federal Power Act, of a transfer of license for the
following projects: Catawba-Wateree (P-2232-521), Ninety-Nine Islands
(P-2331-034), Gaston Shoals (P-2332-040), Keowee-Toxaway (P-2503-106),
Bryson (P-2601-010), Dillsboro (P-2602-011), Franklin (P-2603-015),
Mission (P-2619-015), West Fork (P-2686-050), Nantahala (P-2692-040),
Queens Creek (P-2694-021), East Fork (P-2698-044), and Bad Creek (P-
2740-048) from the Duke Energy Corporation to Duke Power Company LLC.
    k. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the project

number excluding the last three digits (P-2232, 2331, 2332, 2503, 2601,
2602, 2603, 2619, 2686, 2692, 2694, 2698, or 2740) in the docket number
field to access the document. For online assistance, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>, for TTY,

call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the addresses in item g.
    l. Individual desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. 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. 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.

    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    o. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filling
comments, it will be assumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15427 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3837 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 2. OMB control number b. X None a. 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD) ( Final Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 2028.02 9. Keywords : Industrial boilers, Commercial boilers, Institutional boilers, Process Heaters, Hazardous Air Pollutants, NESHAP 10. Abstract: Each owner or operator of a source affected by the standards is required to submit an initial notification that the source is subject to the standard. Each respondent submits semiannual compliance reports. Additional records and notifications depend on which subcategory the boilers or process heaters are in. The owner or operator of an industrial, commercial, or institutional boiler or process heater for which there are applicable emission limits control hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) by either limiting the HAP content in the inlet fuels or by using an emission control system to meet the applicable emission limits.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. x Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. x State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 18,788 b. Total annual responses 18,788 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 1,201,746 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1,201,746 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 1,201,746 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 23,504 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 23,504 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 23,504 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 23,504 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. x Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. x Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. x Other ( describe) One time 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Jim Eddinger, U. S. EPA, MD C439 01 Phone: 919 541 5426 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: April 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 81)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19480]
[DOCID:fr29ap09-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R03-RCRA-2009-0916; FRL-8898-6]

Pennsylvania: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pennsylvania has applied to EPA for final authorization of
revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final
authorization to Pennsylvania. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the revisions by an
immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior to the
immediate final rule because we believe this action is not
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the
immediate final rule. Unless we receive written comments that oppose
this authorization during the comment period, the immediate final rule
will become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. However, if we receive comments that
oppose this action we will withdraw the immediate final rule and it
will not take effect. We will then respond to public comments in a
later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have another
opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, you
must do so at this time.

DATES: Send your written comments by May 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
RCRA-2009-0916, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3LC50, Office of State Programs,
U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
    4. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    You may inspect and copy Pennsylvania's application from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday at the following locations: Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Education and
Information Center, 1st Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building, 400
Market St., Harrisburg, PA 17105, Phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Regional
Office, 400 Waterfront Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Phone number: (412)
442-4097; and EPA Region III, Library, 2nd Floor, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons with a
disability may use the AT&T Relay Service to contact Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> (TDD
users), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice users).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-RCRA-
2009-0916. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public file without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The Federal http://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public file and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3LC50,
Office of State Programs, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. E9-9790 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P