[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60951-60953]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24190]

========================================================================
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.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 398

[Docket No.: DOT-OST-2014-0061]

Essential Air Service Enforcement Policy

AGENCY: Office of Aviation Analysis (X50), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Final notice of enforcement policy.

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

SUMMARY: This notice of enforcement policy announces how the Department
of Transportation (DOT or Department) will enforce compliance with the
requirements of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000, which prohibits the Department from
subsidizing Essential Air Service (EAS) to communities located within
the 48 contiguous States receiving per passenger subsidy amounts
exceeding $200, unless the communities are located more than 210 miles
from the nearest large or medium hub airport. All communities receiving
subsidized EAS have until September 30, 2015, based on data from
October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015, to ensure compliance with
the $200 subsidy cap or face termination of subsidy eligibility. After
September 30, 2015, the Department will enforce the $200 subsidy cap on
an annual basis based on data compiled at the end of every fiscal year.
Consistent with established procedures, DOT will issue a show-cause
order to each EAS community that has been identified as failing to meet
the $200 per passenger subsidy requirement. Each such community will
have a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate compliance with
the $200 subsidy cap prior to a final decision by DOT. In addition, any
community that is deemed ineligible under the $200 subsidy cap
provision may petition the Secretary for a waiver. After receiving a
community's petition for a waiver, the Secretary may waive the subsidy
cap for a limited period of time, on a case-by-case basis, and subject
to the availability of funds. To provide the Department with sufficient
time to evaluate the FY 2015 data for potentially affected communities,
DOT does not intend to issue any show-cause orders concerning
compliance with the $200 subsidy cap until 2016.

DATES: This enforcement policy is effective November 10, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Kevin Schlemmer, Chief, Essential Air Service and
Domestic Analysis Division, Office of Aviation Analysis, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W86-309, Washington,
DC 20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this action, contact Claire McKenna, Attorney,
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room 96-309; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Airline Deregulation Act, passed in 1978, gave airlines
significant flexibility to determine which markets to serve
domestically and what fares to charge for that service. The United
States Congress (Congress) established the EAS program to guarantee
that small communities that were served by certificated air carriers
before deregulation would maintain at least a minimum level of
scheduled air service after airline deregulation. Since its inception,
the EAS program has provided a vital link for eligible small
communities to the National Airspace System (NAS). Indeed, this program
ensures that small communities across America can tap into the economic
and quality of life benefits that scheduled air services offer.
    Over the years, Congress has made a number of statutory changes to
the program (most recently in 2011 and 2012), but the fundamental
purpose of the program remains unchanged. Given the socio-economic
importance of this program, DOT remains committed to preserving the EAS
program for eligible communities and ensuring the sustainability of the
program for the future.
    This enforcement policy concerns the statutory mandate that
prohibits DOT from providing EAS funds to any carrier to serve any
community in the 48 contiguous states that requires a per-passenger-
subsidy in excess of $200 unless the community is located more than 210
miles from the nearest large or medium airport. Congress first imposed
a $200 subsidy per passenger cap for communities in the 48 contiguous
States in Fiscal Year 1990 appropriations language. Such language was
repeated in several later appropriations acts throughout the 1990s, and
was made permanent by the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, Public Law 106-69, 113 Stat. 986
(Oct. 9, 1999). Specifically, the Act provides that:

Hereafter, notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 41742, no essential air service
subsidies shall be provided to communities in the 48 contiguous
States that are located fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest
large or medium hub airport, or that require a rate of subsidy per
passenger in excess of $200 unless such point is greater than 210
miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport.

The Department has always expected communities less than 210 miles from
a large or medium hub airport \1\ to work together with air carriers
providing EAS to keep the subsidy per passenger below the $200 cap or
risk termination of eligibility for EAS subsidy. DOT has also routinely
provided notice of this statutory mandate to communities that were or
appeared to be at risk of exceeding the cap, and a number of EAS
communities have lost their eligibility as a result of this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consistent with longstanding practice, DOT calculates the
shortest driving distance between an EAS community and a large or
medium hub airport from the center of the EAS community to the
entrance of the nearest large or medium hub airport as determined by
the Federal Highway Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the $200 subsidy cap is a longstanding statutory
provision, in 2012, Congress added a provision that allows the
Secretary to grant waivers in limited circumstances. To effectuate that
new provision and to ensure the fair and consistent treatment of all
EAS communities subject to the $200 subsidy cap prospectively, DOT
published a notice of proposed enforcement policy on May 1, 2014,

seeking public comments on a proposed policy to enforce the $200
subsidy cap. Comments on the proposal were due June 30.
    The Department received seven comments on the proposed policy. All
of the commenters noted that the $200 subsidy cap established by the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2000, Public Law 106-69, 113 Stat. 986 (Oct. 9, 1999), has not kept up
with the pace of inflation, and that enforcement of the cap would
impose a hardship on EAS communities and be contrary to the EAS
program's objectives (to ensure these communities have air service). We
recognize these comments; however, the requirements of the statute do
not provide us with discretion to adjust the subsidy cap amount or
refrain from enforcement.
    One commenter offered several suggested changes to the proposed
enforcement policy, such as: (1) The subsidy cap should be calculated
based on actual subsidy paid, not the estimates provided in the
carrier's proposal that form the basis of the subsidy award in the
selection order; (2) enforcement of the subsidy cap should be based on
the contract term, not the fiscal year--so as to not disadvantage
carriers and communities that will be mid-contract at the time of the
enforcement action in 2016 (and each year after that); and (3)
communities should be permitted to refund funds to the Department, or
contribute funds to carriers so that the Federal Government's share of
the subsidy is below the subsidy cap. We appreciate these suggestions.
    First, regarding the suggestion that the calculation be based on
actual subsidy paid, the method of calculating per passenger subsidy
described in the Notice of Proposed Enforcement Policy reflects the
Department's long standing practice. This method formed the basis of
the enforcement actions taken under this provision since it first
appeared in appropriations language in 1990. Carriers and communities
are familiar with the use of this methodology and we do not, at this
time, believe that a change is warranted. Moreover, if a community were
over the $200 per passenger cap based on the Department's traditional
application, but under $200 based on actual subsidy payments, the
community could object to a tentative finding in the show-cause order
or raise this point in a petition for waiver, and the Department would
then assess those arguments on a case-by-case basis.
    Second, with respect to the comment on enforcement by contract
term, rather than fiscal year, the Department believes it has given all
of the affected parties ample time to come into compliance with the
subsidy cap by delaying enforcement until 2016. In addition, while most
EAS subsidy contracts have a two-year term, there are several that are
for four-year, or even five-year, terms. The Department believes it
would not be fiscally prudent, or fair to communities operating under a
two year contract, to permit communities with subsidy caps well in
excess of $200 per passenger to be essentially excused from this
statutory requirement for many years simply because they are operating
under longer EAS contracts. While we recognize that there may be some
drawbacks to enforcement on a fiscal year basis, there are also
drawbacks to a contract-based approach, as noted in the preceding
sentence. With this in mind, the Department will move forward with the
fiscal year based approach described in the Notice of Proposed
Enforcement Policy. We believe that this approach is the most fair to
communities, given the variety of contract terms, and is consistent
with the practice for enforcement of other EAS eligibility
requirements, such as the requirement that EAS communities enplane ten
or more passengers per day. 49 U.S.C. 41731(a)(1)(B). The Department
intends to publish quarterly calculations of per passenger subsidies at
EAS communities on its Web site. We believe that this will further
support communities in their efforts to remain below the subsidy cap by
providing them with on-going notice of their per passenger subsidy
amounts that will hopefully facilitate proactive discussions between
communities and carriers to address potential threats to their
continued eligibility well in advance of any enforcement action by the
Department.
    Third, regarding the suggestion that communities be able to remit
funds to the Department to lower its subsidy per passenger, section 323
of Public Law 106-69 (Oct. 9, 1999) states that ``no [EAS] subsidies
shall be provided'' to communities that require a rate of subsidy in
excess of $200 per passenger. The Department has consistently construed
this not as a limit on the Department's ability to pay more than $200
per passenger, but rather, as an overall limitation on any subsidy
payment for EAS service when the required subsidy is in excess of $200
per passenger. See DOT Order 89-12-52 (Dec. 29, 1989) (finding that the
subsidy cap ``was a disqualification for any subsidy at a point that
exceeded'' the cap). Thus, we do not believe that the statute permits
this approach.
    Having carefully considered the comments received and the statutory
requirements for eligibility, we are finalizing the enforcement policy
proposed in the Notice of Proposed Enforcement Policy, as follows:

Enforcement Policy

    The Department will begin enforcement of the $200 subsidy cap in
2016, based on data compiled from October 1, 2014, through September
30, 2015, as described in this policy. The Department will continue
enforcement of the $200 subsidy cap on an annual basis based on data
compiled at the end of every fiscal year and submitted to DOT after the
close of the most recent fiscal year.
    If after September 30, 2015 (and each September 30 thereafter for
the preceding fiscal year), a particular community's subsidy per
passenger is above $200 (as measured on an annual basis) and its
location is less than 210 miles from a large or medium hub airport, the
Department will initiate proceedings, consistent with 49 U.S.C.
41733(f) and Public Law 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012), Section 426(c),
directing interested persons to show cause why the Department should
not terminate the eligibility of the community in question under the
EAS Program. This process will provide each potentially affected
community with a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate
compliance with the $200 subsidy cap prior to a final decision by DOT.
    Communities are reminded that the EAS program contains certain
statutory protections that may be invoked by an EAS community adversely
affected by the $200 per passenger subsidy cap. First, in the event
that DOT determines that a community is ineligible because it exceeds
the $200 subsidy cap provision in a given fiscal year, the community
may petition the U.S. Transportation Secretary for a waiver pursuant to
Public Law 112-95, Sec. 426(c) (Feb. 14, 2012). Under this provision,
``[s]ubject to the availability of funds, the Secretary may waive, on a
case-by-case basis, the subsidy-per-passenger cap.'' The law further
provides: ``A waiver . . . shall remain in effect for a limited period
of time, as determined by the Secretary.'' Second, a community that is
deemed ineligible for subsidy based on the $200 subsidy cap may submit
a proposal to the Secretary for restoration of subsidy. Upon receipt of
a proposal, the Department will restore the community's subsidy
eligibility if the Secretary determines that the rate of the per
passenger

subsidy under the proposal does not exceed $200, and the proposal is
likely to result in an average of more than 10 enplanements per day and
is consistent with the EAS program's other legal and regulatory
requirements. 49 U.S.C. 41733(g).
    Consistent with past practice and the Department's obligations
under 49 U.S.C. 41733(f)(2), DOT encourages potentially affected
communities to work with air carriers providing subsidized EAS to
maximize use of the service awarded under their respective carrier-
selection orders to avoid exceeding the $200 subsidy cap.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2014.
Brandon M. Belford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-24190 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4598-4600]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02055]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 124

[FRL-9971-52-OARM]

Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative
Assessment of Civil Penalties, Issuance of Compliance or Corrective
Action Orders, and the Revocation/Termination or Suspension of Permits;
Procedures for Decisionmaking; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a document
in the Federal Register on January 9, 2017. That document revised
filing and service requirements in permit appeal proceedings before the
Environmental Appeals Board, but in doing so two subsections of the
procedural rule were

inadvertently and unintentionally removed. This rule corrects that
inadvertent removal as well as two other non-substantive typographical
errors in the rule.

DATES: This final rule correction is effective on February 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ammie Roseman-Orr, Environmental
Appeals Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, William Jefferson
Clinton Building East, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Mail Code 1103M,
Washington DC 20460-0001, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is the EPA issuing this rule in final form without first issuing
a proposal?

    Today's final rule is limited to correcting a mistake to procedural
requirements for administrative adjudicatory hearings and appeals from
such hearings and from permit decisions. As an amendment to a
procedural rule, this final rule itself is a procedural rule. Under the
Administrative Procedure Act, an agency may issue ``rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice'' without first proposing such
rules for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Accordingly, public comment
is not required.
    In addition, EPA has determined that this rule is effective
immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. In general,
Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d) requires that substantive rules not become
effective less than 30 days after publication. However, this action
involves not a substantive rule but a procedural rule. Moreover, the
purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to
give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and
prepare before the final rule takes effect. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need
time to prepare before the actions take effect. To the contrary, this
action merely corrects typographical errors and restores regulatory
text that was inadvertently deleted thereby restoring the prior status
quo. Furthermore, the absence of these provisions may result in
confusion to parties as well as inefficiencies in the appeals process
and thus it is in the public interest have the restoration of those
provisions effective immediately. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

II. Does this action apply to me?

    This action affects parties involved in EPA administrative
adjudicatory proceedings for the assessment of civil penalties,
issuance of various compliance orders, and termination or suspension of
certain permits, under part 22 of title 40 of the CFR. See 40 CFR 22.1.
This action also affects parties involved in appeal of EPA permits
under part 124 of title 40 of the CFR.

III. Background

    The rule document published on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2230),
revised the filing and service procedures used in permit appeals to the
Environmental Appeals Board. The EPA also revised 40 CFR 124.19(b)(1)
and (2) so that the deadlines for filing a response to a petition for
review are based on the date the petition for review is served, rather
than the date it is filed. Subsections (3) and (4) were intended to
remain unchanged but were inadvertently removed from the rule.
    Additionally, in Sec.  124.19(i)(2)(iii), the address for delivery
by hand or courier to the Environmental Appeals Board incorrectly
identifies the room number as 3334 when the actual room number is 3332
and language regarding methods of delivery by hand or courier was
inadvertently omitted.
    Finally, the language in Sec.  124.19(i)(3)(ii) revising the
service requirements to allow for service by email inadvertently
contains an extra ``or'' that does not belong so that this provision of
the rule now reads: ``Service must be by first class U.S. mail, by any
reliable commercial delivery service, or, if agreed to by the parties,
by facsimile or other electronic means, including but not necessarily
limited to or email.'' Removal of the last ``or'' will make the
sentence clearer.

IV. Need for Correction

    As published on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2230), the final regulation
contains an error that resulted in the inadvertent removal of two
procedural provisions that govern the participation of permit
applicants, State, and Tribal Authorities in permit proceedings before
the Environmental Appeals Board. The absence of these provisions may
result in confusion to parties and inefficiencies in the appeals
process and thus these provisions need to be reinstated. Additionally,
revising the Environmental Appeals Board's address for delivery by hand
or courier in Sec.  124.19(i)(2)(iii) to reflect the correct room
number and to include methods of delivery by hand or courier will avoid
potential confusion. Finally, the superfluous ``or'' in the third
sentence of Sec.  124.19(i)(3)(ii) is confusing. Removal of that word
will not change the meaning of the sentence and will make the provision
clearer.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 124

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures.

    Dated: January 22, 2018.
Donna J. Vizian,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and
Resources Management.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 124 is corrected as follows:

PART 124--PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONMAKING

0
1. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et. seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et. seq.;
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7401 et. seq.

0
2. In Sec.  124.19:
0
a. Add paragraphs (b)(3) and (4).
0
b. Revise paragraph (i)(2) introductory text and paragraph (i)(2)(iii).
0
c. Revise the third sentence of paragraph (i)(3)(ii).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  124.19   Appeal of RCRA, UIC, NPDES and PSD Permits.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A permit applicant who did not file a petition but who wishes
to participate in the appeal process must file a notice of appearance
and a response to the petition. Such documents must be filed by the
deadlines provided in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as
appropriate.
    (4) The State or Tribal authority where the permitted facility or
site is or is proposed to be located (if that authority is not the
permit issuer) must also file a notice of appearance and a response if
it wishes to participate in the appeal. Such response must be filed by
the deadlines provided in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) Method of filing. Unless otherwise permitted under these rules,
documents must be filed either by using the Environmental Appeals
Board's electronic filing system, by U.S. mail, or by hand delivery or
courier (including delivery by U.S. Express Mail or by a commercial
delivery service). In addition, a motion or a response to a motion may
be submitted by facsimile if the submission contains no attachments.

Upon filing a motion or response to a motion by facsimile, the sender
must, within one business day, submit the original copy to the Clerk of
the Environmental Appeals Board either electronically, by mail, or by
hand delivery or courier. The Environmental Appeals Board may by order
require filing by facsimile or the Board's electronic filing system,
subject to any appropriate conditions and limitations.
* * * * *
    (iii) Filing by hand delivery or courier. Documents delivered by
hand or courier (including deliveries by U.S. Express Mail or by a
commercial delivery service) must be delivered to the Clerk of the
Environmental Appeals Board at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Appeals Board, WJC East Building, 1201 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room 3332, Washington, DC 20004.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Service requirements for parties. * * * Service must be by
first class U.S. mail, by any reliable commercial delivery service, or,
if agreed to by the parties, by facsimile or other electronic means,
including but not necessarily limited to email. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-02055 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 3 (Friday, January 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 734-735]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001]

Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs; Notice of
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health
Drugs.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 4, 2013, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD
20993-

0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Kalyani Bhatt, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee link, or call the advisory committee information
line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the
meeting.
    Agenda: On March 4, 2013, during the morning session, the committee
will discuss new drug application (NDA) 022506, gabapentin 600
milligram (mg) tablets, submitted by Depomed, Inc., for the proposed
indication of treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to
menopause.
    During the afternoon session, the committee will discuss NDA
204516, paroxetine mesylate 7.5 mg capsules, submitted by Noven
Therapeutics, LLC, for the proposed indication of treatment of moderate
to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
February 15, 2013. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
February 7, 2013. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
sessions, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing sessions. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by February 8,
2013.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kalyani Bhatt at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: December 28, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-31675 Filed 1-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15301-15302]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06008]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0453; FRL 9957-84-Region 7]

State of Iowa; Approval and Promulgation of the Title V Operating
Permits Program, the State Implementation Plan, and 112(l) Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the
Federal Register on September 9, 2016, approving revisions to the Iowa
Title V Operation Permits Program, the State Implementation Plan (SIP),
and the 112(l) plan. This amendment makes minor administrative
revisions and amends the state effective date.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 28, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62387),
Federal Register direct final action approving revisions to part 52,
chapter 22 of Iowa's SIP, EPA inadvertently omitted a minor
administrative phrase from rules 567-22.4, 567-22.5, and 567.22.10.
This technical part 52 revision to 567-22.5 is also being applied to
Iowa's 112(l) plan.
    This technical revision is also making corrections to the Region 7
Technical Support Document (TSD) that supports the September 9, 2016
(81 FR 62387), direct final action. EPA inadvertently omitted minor
administrative phrases and a reference from chapter 22 rule 567-22.103.
Two revisions to chapter 22 rule 567-22.105(2) are required for
clarification. Please see the revised TSD included in the docket.
    Finally, we are revising the incorrect state effective dates
codified on page 62398 of the September 9, 2016 (81 FR 62387), Federal
Register for parts 52 and 70. The correct state effective date is
December 16, 2015.
    Additional information for this technical amendment can be found in
the revised Technical Support Document located in this docket.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 20, 2017.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR parts 52 and 70 is corrected by making the
following technical amendments:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Q--Iowa

Sec.  52.820  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.820, the table in paragraph(c) is amended by removing
from under the column titled ``State effective date'' the text ``3/15/
16'' and adding the text ``12/16/15'' in its place for entries ``567-
20.1'', ``567-22.1'', ``567-22.4'', ``567-22.5'', ``567-22.8'', ``567-
22.10'' ``567-31.1'' and ``567-33.1'', respectively.

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
4. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by revising paragraph (q) under the
heading ``Iowa'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Program

* * * * *

Iowa

* * * * *

    (q) The Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted for
program approval a revision to rules 567-22.100, 567-22.101, 567-
22.103, 567-22.105, 567-22.106, 567-22.108, and added 567.30.4(2) on
December 16, 2015. This revision to the Iowa program is approved
effective on November 8, 2016.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-06008 Filed 3-27-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56520-56527]
[DOCID:fr27se06-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL06-5-000]

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff;
Settlements in Hydropower Licensing Proceedings Under Part I of the
Federal Power Act; Policy Statement on Hydropower Licensing Settlements

Issued September 21, 2006.
    1. Hydroelectric licensing proceedings under Part I of the Federal
Power Act (FPA) are ulti-faceted and complex. These proceedings involve
the balancing of many public interest factors, as well as consideration
of the views of all interested groups and individuals. Moreover, since
the physical design, environmental impact, and history of every project
is different, each licensing proceeding is, to at least some extent,
unique.
    2. Given this backdrop, the Commission looks with great favor on
settlements in licensing cases. When parties are able to reach
settlements, it can save time and money, avoid the need for protracted
litigation, promote the development of positive relationships among
entities who may be working together during the course of a license
term, and give the Commission, as it acts on license and exemption
applications, a clear sense as to the parties' views on the issues
presented in each settled case.
    3. At the same time, the Commission cannot automatically accept all
settlements, or all provisions of settlements. Section 10(a)(1) of the
FPA requires that the Commission determine that any licensed project is
best adapted

to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or
waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for
the improvement and utilization of waterpower development, for the
adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife
(including related spawning grounds and habitat), and for other
beneficial public uses, including irrigation, flood control, water
supply, and recreational and other purposes referred to in section
4(e).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 16 U.S.C. 803(a)(1) (2000). FPA section 4(e), 16 U.S.C.
797(e), provides, in pertinent part, that the Commission, in
addition to the power and development purposes for which licenses
are issued, shall give equal consideration to the purposes of energy
conservation, the protection, mitigation of damages to, and
enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning
grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities,
and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Consequently, in reviewing settlements, the Commission looks not
only to the wishes of the settling parties, but also at the greater
public interest, and whether settlement proposals meet the
comprehensive development/equal consideration standard. Because of the
requirements of Part I of the FPA, the Commission's review of
hydropower licensing settlements is often different from that accorded
to other settlements presented to us, such as those in rate cases. In
the latter type of cases, the Commission may accept settlements as a
whole, given that it has authority under section 5 of the Natural Gas
Act and section 206 of the FPA to examine at any time whether rates,
charges, rules, regulations, practices, or contracts are unjust,
unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential. Because section 6
of the FPA precludes revision of hydropower licenses without the
licensee's consent, it is necessary that the Commission examine
proposed license conditions in detail before approving them. The
Commission does include reopener provisions in hydropower licenses, but
these are only exercised where environmental conditions have
significantly changed. Were the Commission to assert a broad, general
authority to reopen any part of a license during its term, equivalent
to the authority provided by sections 5 and 206, this would sharply
undercut the certainty sought by parties to licensing proceedings. As a
separate matter, the Commission's role in overseeing license compliance
makes it important that license conditions be clear and enforceable.
    5. The Commission must also ensure that its decisions on
settlements, like all decisions under the FPA, are supported by
substantial evidence.\2\ To support a proposed license condition, then,
it is necessary for the parties to develop a factual record that
provides substantial evidence to support the proposed condition, and
demonstrates how the condition is related to project purposes or to
project effects. The settling parties should provide the Commission
with record support showing a nexus between the proposal and the
impacts of the project, as well as to project purposes, and also
explain how the proposal will accomplish its stated purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See FPA section 313(b), 16 U.S.C. 825l (2000) (``[t]he
finding of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by
substantial evidence, shall be conclusive'') (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In addition, proposed license conditions must be enforceable. By
way of example, the Commission is precluded by law from assessing
damages, so any condition that would do so would be unenforceable. To
the extent that the Commission does not adopt proposed conditions that
it has no jurisdiction to enforce, this does not evidence general
opposition to settlements or to the settlement at hand, but rather
recognition that the Commission can only exercise that authority given
it by Congress. Also, the Commission has jurisdiction over only its
licensees, and therefore cannot enforce any condition to the extent
that it purports to place responsibility on a non-licensee. In
addition, conditions that do not clearly outline the licensee's
responsibilities and establish the parameters governing required
actions may be difficult or impossible to enforce. However, as
discussed below, contracts that the Commission cannot enforce may well
be made enforceable by other means, such as binding arbitration, or
resort to State or Federal court.
    7. It should be noted that the fact that the Commission does not,
whether as a matter of law or policy, include certain provisions in
licenses does not mean that they are precluded from being included in a
settlement. Settling parties are free to enter into ``off-license'' or
``side'' agreements with respect to matters that will not be included
in a license. However, the Commission has no jurisdiction over such
agreements and their existence will carry no weight in the Commission's
consideration of a license application under the FPA.
    8. Based on the foregoing, the logical process for arriving at an
acceptable settlement is for the parties to undertake the following
steps:
     Use existing information and pre-license studies to
determine the environmental effects of the proposed project.
     Based on this record, develop appropriate environmental
measures to address those effects.
     Craft settlement provisions based on the record and the
proposed measures, taking into account recent Commission precedent.
     Prepare an explanation of the settlement that will enable
the Commission to understand the parties' intent and what in the record
they believe supports their proposals.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In its regulations, the Commission has set forth details
concerning the content of settlements, and the procedures relating
to their filing. See 18 CFR 385.602 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. We are aware that settling parties have a strong interest in
knowing in advance which provisions of proposed settlements are likely
to be acceptable to the Commission. Precedent can serve as a very
useful guide in this regard. If parties engaged in settlement
discussions wish to obtain additional guidance as to particular
concepts or proposed provisions, it may be useful to seek the advice of
Commission staff, by requesting that staff either participate in an
advisory role in settlement discussions or review proposed settlements
before they are filed with the Commission. While Commission staff
cannot speak for the Commission itself, staff will be able to give
parties the benefit of its experience, as well as advice regarding
recent Commission actions. Advice from experienced staff, coupled with
careful reading of recent Commission precedent, is the best way to
predict the Commission's likely reaction to particular provisions
proposed in settlement agreements.
    10. At the same time, we recognize the value of more general
guidance. Therefore, we have prepared this document, in an attempt to
elucidate certain principles regarding settlements. Some of the matters
discussed below have been dealt with in Commission orders; others
represent application of the principles enunciated in those orders.
While we hope that this document will be useful to parties engaged in
settlement negotiations, we caution that the Commission will review
every case on its facts and make in each instance the public interest
determination required by the FPA. Thus, the statements in this
document represent guidance, but not a guarantee. It may be that the
facts of a particular case dictate a different result from that in a
previous proceeding where a similar issue arose, or that policy changes
over time.
    11. Certain general types of issues have arisen with some frequency
over

the last several years. The following discussion outlines some
principles with respect to these issues, in the hope of providing
general principles that may assist settling parties. In the last
section of this guidance, we list more specific settlement provisions
that have been of concern. While individual cases are cited throughout
this document, this guidance is not intended to be an encyclopedic
reference to all cases involving settlements.
    12. The following basic principles, which are discussed in more
detail below, apply to the consideration of measures proposed to be
included as conditions in project licenses:
     Measures must be based on substantial evidence in the
record of the licensing proceeding.
     Measures must be consistent with the law and enforceable.
In particular, measures must be within the Commission's jurisdiction.
     A relationship must be established between a proposed
measure and project effects or purposes.
     Measures should be as narrow as possible, with specific
measures (e.g., installing riprap to prevent erosion) preferred over
general measures, such as creation of an aquatic resource fund.
     Actions required under measures should occur physically/
geographically as close as possible to the project.
     Measures must reserve the Commission's compliance
authority, as well as its authority to review and modify as necessary
proposed resource or activity plans (for example, a provision that a
stakeholder committee can determine new measures during the license
term should also provide that the proposed measures be filed with the
Commission for its review, modification, and approval).

Substantial Evidence

    13. As noted above, the FPA provides that the Commission's
determinations will be upheld if they are supported by substantial
evidence. In consequence, the Commission must have substantial evidence
to support its licensing decisions. If parties want the Commission to
accept the terms of a settlement, they must provide substantial
evidence to support the measures they ask the Commission to impose.
Thus, for example, it would not be sufficient to ask the Commission to
set a particular minimum instream flow solely because the parties have
compromised on that number. Rather, the parties would need to provide a
scientific explanation, supported by facts in the record, of how that
level of flows meets the needs of affected resources and how it is
consistent with the comprehensive development of the waterway.
Similarly, if there is no showing of harm of a fishery, the record will
not support a measure requiring the mitigation of harm to fish species.
See Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC, 109 FERC ] 61,028 at P 6
(2004); see also City of Centralia, WA v. FERC, 213 F.3d 742 (D.C. Cir.
2000).

Lawful And Enforceable

    14. A settlement provision that extends beyond the Commission's
jurisdiction to require or to enforce cannot become a lawful term in a
Commission license. It would seem axiomatic that proposed settlement
provisions and license conditions must be consistent with law. Yet, in
some instances, settlements include provisions that purport to extend
the Commission's jurisdiction. It is important for parties to bear in
mind that the bounds of the Commission's jurisdiction are established
by law and cannot be expanded through an order implementing a
settlement. Thus, the Commission has jurisdiction only over its
licensees and cannot enforce the provisions of a settlement against
other parties, such as Federal and State agencies, or private parties.
See, e.g., Avista Corporation, 93 FERC ] 61,116 at 61,329 (2000).
Matters that are beyond the Commission's jurisdiction can be resolved
by parties in ``off-license'' agreements that will not be included in a
license, see, e.g., City of Seattle, WA, 75 FERC ] 61,319 at 62,014,
n.6 (1996). As another example, because the FPA does not allow the
Commission to impose damages, a damages provision may not properly be
included in a license. See, e.g. Consumers Power Company, 68 FERC ]
61,077 at 61,378-80 (1994). In addition, the Commission cannot expand
its own jurisdiction. Thus, even if parties agree that a license should
include measures that are outside of the Commission's jurisdiction--for
example, a requirement that a State agency manage a wildlife refuge--
the Commission could not enforce the measures.

Dispute Resolution/Enforceability

    15. Parties to settlements often agree as to the form of dispute
resolution they will use during the license term. Initially, the
Commission declined to include in licenses dispute resolution
provisions that purported to bind parties other than the licensee, on
the ground that those provisions were unenforceable, given that the
Commission had jurisdiction only over its licensees. See, e.g., Avista
Corporation, 93 FERC ] 61,116 (2000). The Commission later modified its
policy, to the extent of deciding that it would require licensees to
comply with settlement provisions of this kind, even though it could
only enforce them against licensees. See Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP,
100 FERC ] 61,321 at 62,502 (2002). Parties who want such provisions in
licenses should bear in mind, however, the limited nature of the
Commission's enforcement authority in such matters. Thus, for example,
the Commission could require a licensee to comply with notice
provisions or to attend meetings required by a dispute resolution
provision. It could not require a Federal or State resource agency or a
non-governmental entity to do so.

Relationship to the Project

Comprehensive Development

    16. As noted above, pursuant to Part I of the FPA, the Commission
is required to license projects that best result in the comprehensive
development of a waterway. In order to determine whether proposed
settlement provisions or license conditions meet this standard, it is
necessary for the Commission to determine to what extent these
proposals relate to project effects or project purposes. This is easier
to do if the provisions in question call for specific measures (rather
than a general expenditure of funds), if the measures call for actions
in the project vicinity, and if the settling parties document how the
measures are tied to project effects or purposes. Thus, it may be easy
to understand and explain how construction of a campground or a boat
put-in at a project reservoir is tied to the project purpose of
recreation. It is harder to draw that connection if, for example, a
settlement measure calls for recreation facilities many miles above or
below the project, or for facilities, such as a snowmobile trail, that
may not have an obvious connection to the project. Similarly, it is
more difficult to explain how paying a dollar amount for future,
unspecified enhancements is tied to a project purpose. As the
Commission explained in Virginia Electric Power Company, 110 FERC ]
61,241 at P 11 (2005):

    We * * * note with approval the fact that the many measures
required by the settlement and the corresponding license articles
appear to call for activities related to project impacts and
purposes. It is our strong preference that measures required in a
license be clearly tied to the project at issue. We are sometimes
troubled by settlements which require measures, such as general
funds to be used for unspecified measures, that are not tied to
either project impacts or purposes. In addition, we prefer measures
requiring specific actions (i.e., the licensee

shall construct a fish hatchery) to those mandating general actions
whose effects are unclear (i.e., the licensee shall contribute
$100,000 to support fisheries enhancements). It is much easier for
us to conclude that a project proposal based on specific measures is
in the public interest, as opposed to one made up in large part of
measures whose impacts we cannot truly assess. We also note that we
have a preference for mitigation or enhancement measures that are
located in the vicinity of the project unless this is impractical or
unless substantially increased overall project benefits can be
realized from adopting off-site measures.

Project Purposes

    17. Instances of orders concluding that settlement measures were
not sufficiently tied to project purposes or project effects include:
Portland General Electric Company, 107 FERC ] 61,158 at P 21, n.21
(2004) (disposition of non-project lands and of water rights);
PacificCorp, 105 FERC ] 61,237 at P 113, n.27 (2003) (portions of
settlement not relating to project operations or environmental effects
not included in license); Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 97 FERC ]
61,084 at 61,409-10 (2001) (monitoring of water temperature, flows, and
meteorological conditions in reservoirs and river reaches within
boundaries of upstream project; investigating feasibility of, and
possibly making, modifications to upstream project); Northern States
Power Company, 111 FERC ] 62,212 at P 31 (2005) (recreation enhancement
measures outside project boundary that did not provide access to
project lands or waters, where adequate access already provided at
project); PacifiCorp, 104 FERC ] 62,059 at P 28 (2003) (provisions
providing for recreation enhancements outside project boundary, and for
sale of non-project lands); USGen New England, 99 FERC ] 62,025 at
64,060-61 (2002) (partially rejecting proposal for enhancement fund, to
extent fund would cover activities outside project boundary, with no
nexus to project, or, in case of mitigation for tax revenue impacts,
beyond Commission's jurisdiction).

Recreation

    18. Many settlements contain provisions regarding recreation. As
with other settlement provisions, it is important that parties base
proposed recreation provisions on record evidence supporting the need
for the proposed facilities and that they link the measures in question
to the project. Thus, if a settlement proposes enhancements to
campgrounds in the project area, parties should explain how those
facilities are used in connection with the project and demonstrate the
need for the facilities. For example, if data show that existing
campgrounds are not greatly used, it may be hard to justify expanding
them or adding new campgrounds.
    19. Given that a project is primarily a water-based facility, it
may not be hard to conclude that construction of a boat ramp, a fishing
pier, or a hiking trail along the reservoir perimeter could be an
appropriate environmental measure that serves a project purpose, if the
need for that facility is established. These facilities would enable
the public to better use the project lands and waters. It may be more
difficult to justify recreation that is more remote from the project
site (as in a campground located 20 miles away from any project works).
Similarly, it may be hard to draw a public interest connection between
a project and a recreation feature that does not appear to be tied to
the nature of the project. For example, a community near a project
might consider itself to be in need of a public auditorium. It would be
difficult to justify inclusion of such a requirement in a license,
unless the parties could demonstrate, not just why the proposed measure
is generally worthwhile, but, more specifically, how it is linked to
the effects and purposes of the project. See Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation, 104 FERC ] 61,295 at P 32-33 (2003) (noting, with respect
to decision not to require retention of certain recreation facilities
within project boundary that environmental assessment had found ``these
facilities are not directly associated with public recreational access
to project waters or facilities,'' and concluding that facilities not
included ``have [insufficient] nexus to reservoir-based recreation and
[similar facilities] are found elsewhere in the area.''); Northern
States Power Company, 111 FERC ] 62,212 at P 31 (2005) (declining to
include proposed recreation measures in license where it is unclear how
measures address access to project lands or waters and when adequate
recreational access provided by existing facilities).
    20. Two other matters that can arise in connection with recreation
facilities are inclusion within the project boundary and cost-sharing,
both discussed below. If the licensee is expected to undertake measures
throughout the license term, such as ongoing maintenance with respect
to a recreation facility that the Commission has determined is
necessary for project purposes,--and the Commission consequently will
have ongoing responsibility to ensure compliance--the licensee may be
required to include the facility within the project boundary. As noted,
this means that the licensee will have to obtain sufficient rights with
respect to the facility to ensure that it can comply with Commission
requirements, but it does not mean that the licensee must obtain fee
ownership. With respect to cost-sharing, settlements occasionally
provide that the licensee will share the costs of maintaining a
facility with a State or Federal agency (often the entity that owns the
facility, such as a campground owned by the U.S. Forest Service). Again
as noted below, if the Commission requires that a facility be
maintained, it can look only to the licensee to do so. Thus, a license
condition must place responsibility for completion of a measure on the
licensee. As noted above, any cost-sharing agreement may have to be a
matter of contract between the licensee and the third party, but will
not be something that Commission staff will recommend including in a
license. See Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., 110 FERC ] 61,056 at P 31
(2005) (finding that, although licensee agreed with U.S. Forest Service
and State agencies to share costs of recreation areas and facilities,
ultimate responsibility for performance of license obligations must be
borne by licensee).

Specific Measures

Cost Caps

    21. In some settlements, parties place financial limits on the
licensee's obligation to perform certain tasks (for example, ``the
licensee shall build a campsite at a cost of $10,000'') or limit the
licensee's obligation to the payment of funds to a third party (for
example, ``the licensee shall pay $10,000 to the State to construct a
fishing pier), rather than the performance of a particular measure. As
the Commission has made clear, a licensee cannot satisfy the obligation
to perform certain tasks by a simple payment to another party, nor can
the obligation be limited by a particular dollar figure. The Commission
will take an independent look at proposed measures and their costs, to
determine if the proposals are reasonable. If a measure is required,
however, it will be because the Commission has determined that the
measure is required to meet the FPA's comprehensive development
standard. In consequence, although the Commission sometimes includes in
license articles spending caps that parties have agreed to, it does so
to memorialize the intent of the parties, but not to approve the limit.
The Commission expects the required measure to be performed by the
licensee, even if the cost exceeds the

agreed-upon cap. As the Commission stated in Virginia Electric Power
Company,

[s]ettlements filed with us often include specific dollar
limitations (i.e., the licensee shall build a fishing pier, at a
cost of up to $15,000), and we sometimes include those limitations
in license articles at the parties' request, in an effort to revise
proposed articles as little as possible. It is important for all
entities involved in settlements to know, however, that we consider
the licensee's obligation to be to complete the measures required by
license articles, in the absence of authorization from the
Commission to the contrary. Dollar figures agreed to by the parties
are not absolute limitations.

110 FERC ] 61,241 at P 10 (2005). See also New York Power Authority,
105 FERC ] 61,102 at P 66 (2003) (reserving Commission's right to amend
agreed-upon funding requirements to ensure that project is operated in
public interest); Allete, Inc., 107 FERC ] 62,036 at P 26 (2004); City
of Sturgis, Michigan, 105 FERC ] 62,132 at P 37 (2003); Charter
Township of Ypsilanti, Michigan, 105 FERC ] 62,019 at P 39 (2003);
PacifiCorp, 105 FERC ] 62,207 at P 27 (2005).

Cost Sharing

    22. As noted, the Commission has no jurisdiction over any party to
a hydroelectric licensing settlement other than the licensee. Some
settlements include agreement that the licensee and some other party
will share the costs of performing certain measures, such as an
agreement that the licensee and a State and Federal agency will jointly
manage a recreation area. The Commission cannot enforce such an
agreement against a non-licensee. Another problem can arise if the
agreement is premised on the receipt of matching funds; that is, the
licensee won't be expected to make a payment unless another entity also
does so. As discussed in regard to cost caps, if the Commission
requires the licensee to undertake a particular measure, it will look
to the licensee alone for the performance of that measure. See, e.g.,
Virginia Electric Power Company, 106 FERC ] 62,245 at P 44 (2004)
(finding that, while settlement provisions require licensee to provide
funds to agency for construction and maintenance of facilities,
licensee is ultimately responsible for compliance with license
conditions); PacifiCorp, 105 FERC ] 62,207 at P 28 (2005) (noting, with
respect to settlement provision requiring licensee to designate
environmental coordinator, that, while licensee may hire others to
perform required measures, burden of compliance rests with licensee).
While licensees and other parties are free to enter into cost-sharing
side agreements, including such provisions in a license is problematic
because the Commission has no ability to enforce them.
    23. Similarly, the parties may agree that a third party will
undertake a certain task, and perhaps be paid by the licensee to do so.
For example, it might be agreed that the licensee will pay a State
agency or a tribe to operate a fish hatchery. If the Commission finds
that operation of the fish hatchery is required for the comprehensive
development of the affected waterway, it will not include in the
license a provision requiring the licensee to pay another entity to
operate the hatchery, but rather will require the licensee to operate
the hatchery and leave to it how to fulfill that obligation. See
Portland General Electric Company, 114 FERC ] 61,137 at P 11, 15
(2006). This is because the Commission has jurisdiction only over its
licensee, and thus cannot ensure that a measure will be carried out
unless ultimate responsibility for doing so rests with the licensee.
    24. Settlement provisions requiring licensees to pay for the
salaries of personnel who work for other entities, such as a State
wildlife biologist or a law enforcement officer, also raise several
issues. First, as noted, the Commission prefers concrete measures with
measurable requirements and impacts such as ``construct and operate a
fish hatchery'' to more indefinite ones such as ``pay the salary of a
State fisheries biologist.'' In addition, the Commission has no way of
assuring that the hiring of personnel paid for by the licensee will
actually accomplish a project purpose or ameliorate a project effect.
Again, this is why measures that require specific, direct, on-the-
ground actions are preferable to more general ones. It makes most sense
for the license to establish what measures a licensee must perform, and
for any settlement between the licensee and third parties regarding the
performance of those measures to be addressed in off-license
agreements.

Funds

    25. As noted above, in order to include a specific environmental
measure in a license, the Commission needs to be able to conclude that
the measure relates to project impacts or project purposes. This is why
the Commission has expressed a preference for specific measures and
that, where possible, such measures be implemented within the project
boundary or close to the project and the area that it affects. An
increasing number of settlements include funds intended to cover the
costs of measures to be undertaken during the course of the license
term. The principles enunciated above apply to consideration of such
funds.
    26. For example, where the record shows that a project has an
impact on certain aquatic species or could enhance such species, it may
be possible to obtain Commission approval of a fund that is designated
for the purpose of enhancing and mitigating impacts on those species
within the project vicinity, such as a fund to pay for a set of
specified fishery habitat enhancements within the project boundary,
provided that the licensee retains sufficient control over the fund
that the Commission can ensure compliance with the related license
article and ensure satisfaction of the underlying project purposes
supporting the fund. As the ties between the proposed fund and record
evidence and project effects and purposes become more tenuous, as with
a fund to undertake unspecified fishery measures within the basin where
the project is located, the propriety of the fund may increasingly come
into question. Thus, if the record does not show that the project has
an adverse effect on fishery resources or does not demonstrate that
effective enhancement measures can be undertaken in the project
vicinity, it may be more difficult to justify inclusion of a fishery
fund in a license. Similarly, a fund that may be used anywhere in a
State or in a broad geographic area may be less likely to be
recommended than one more closely tied to the project. To the extent
that parties feel measures should be undertaken beyond the project
vicinity, they should explain in detail why those measures are related
to project purposes, why they cannot be carried out at the project
site, and why their proposals would satisfy the comprehensive
development standard.

Physical Proximity

Project Boundaries

    27. In the course of Commission action on settlements, issues often
arise with respect to project boundaries. Specifically, parties may be
concerned about what facilities need to be within project boundaries,
and what the impact of such inclusion will be. Therefore, a brief
discussion of this issue may be helpful.
    28. Part I of the FPA directs the Commission, when issuing a
license for a hydroelectric project, to require the licensee to
undertake appropriate measures on behalf of both developmental and non-
developmental public interest uses of the waterway,

including fish, wildlife, and recreation.\4\ These requirements, as set
forth in a license, constitute the ``project purposes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As discussed earlier, FPA section 10(a)(1) sets forth the
standard by which the Commission acts on hydropower license
applications, and incorporates by reference those public purposes
set forth in FPA section 4(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. The Commission has regulatory authority only over the licensee,
and thus can administer and enforce the terms of the license only
through the licensee and the licensee's property rights. Standard
license Article 5 requires the licensee to acquire and retain all
interests in non-Federal lands and other property necessary or
appropriate to carry out project purposes.\5\ The licensee may obtain
these property interests by contract or, if necessary, by means of
Federal eminent domain pursuant to FPA section 21.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Standard Article 5 appears in what are called ``L-Forms,''
which are published at 54 FPC 1792-1928 (1975) and are incorporated
into project licenses by an ordering paragraph. See 18 CFR 2.9
(2006). Article 5 states in pertinent part: ``The Licensee, within
five years from the date of issuance of the license, shall acquire
title in fee or the right to use in perpetuity all lands, other than
lands of the United States, necessary or appropriate for the
construction, maintenance, and operation of the project. The
Licensee or its successors and assigns shall, during the period of
the license, retain the possession of all project property covered
by the license as issued or as later amended, including the project
area, the project works, and all franchises, easements, water
rights, and rights of occupancy and use; and none of such properties
shall be voluntarily sold, leased, transferred, abandoned, or
otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of the
Commission, except that the Licensee may lease or otherwise dispose
of interests in project lands or property without specific written
approval of the Commission pursuant to the then current regulations
of the Commission * * *.''
    \6\ 16 U.S.C. 814 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. A licensee's property interests can range from fee simple to
perpetual or renewable leases, easements, and rights-of-way. Thus,
title to lands within the boundary can be owned by someone other than
the licensee, so long as the licensee holds the necessary property
interests (e.g., flowage easements) and permits (e.g., a Forest Service
special use permit) to carry out licensed project purposes. The license
covers only those property interests held by the licensee; each license
with a project boundary states (in an ordering paragraph) that ``the
project consists [inter alia] of (1) All lands, to the extent of the
licensee's interests in those lands, enclosed by the project boundary
shown by [a designated exhibit] * * *.''
    31. If the Commission requires additional control in order to
accomplish a project purpose, or amends the license to expand or add a
project purpose, it can direct its licensee to obtain any necessary
additional property rights, whether inside or outside the existing
project boundary, and amend the boundary as appropriate. See, e.g.,
Upper Peninsula Power Company, 104 FERC ] 62,135 at P 72 (2003)
(finding that, notwithstanding settlement provision that licensee's
obligation to develop buffer zone and wildlife and land management plan
applied only to license-owned lands within project boundary, obligation
in fact extended to all lands within boundary). Conversely, if the
Commission determines that less land is needed to meet project
purposes, or if it redefines project purposes, it can remove land from
the boundary. If the Commission deletes a parcel of land from the
project and its boundary, the Commission is placing that land outside
of its jurisdiction and regulatory reach. See, e.g., Pacific Gas &
Electric Company, 102 FERC ] 61,309 at P 21; 56-61 (2003) (rejecting
portion of land management plan agreement that would have removed from
project boundaries lands needed for project purposes). Compare
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, 104 FERC ] 61,295 at P 29-38
(2003) (approving in part application to amend project boundaries).
    32. Project boundaries are used to designate the geographic extent
of the lands, waters, works, and facilities that the license identifies
as comprising the licensed project and for which the licensee must hold
the rights necessary to carry out project purposes. The establishment
of a project boundary makes it easier for the Commission, the licensee,
and other interested parties to understand the geographic scope of a
project. All facilities, lands, and waters needed to carry out project
purposes should be within the project boundary. A project boundary does
not change property rights, nor does the conveyance of a property right
change a project boundary.
    33. To an extent, the Commission has allowed an exception for lands
and waters on which a licensee is to carry out one-time measures. For
example, if a licensee is required once to place material in a stream
in order to create fish habitat, but is not required to undertake other
measures in that area during the license term, the Commission may not
include that reach within the project boundary. If, however, the
licensee is obligated to undertake measures throughout the license
term, such as implementing an ongoing habitat restoration plan, the
Commission may require that the affected lands be included in the
project boundary. See, e.g., PacifiCorp, 105 FERC ] 61,237 at P 114
(2003) (noting that licensee would have to amend project boundary to
include lands previously outside of project boundaries, on which
activities required by license).
    34. Thus, if settling parties have a desire to include or exclude
certain lands, waters, or facilities within project boundaries, they
should examine carefully the licensee's obligations and how the lands
or facilities in question relate to project purposes. If lands or
facilities are to be included within the project boundary, there must
be a showing of how they are needed for project purposes; if they are
to be excluded there must be a showing of why they are not needed for
those purposes, or that the measures affecting project lands or
facilities are one-time measures that will not require Commission
oversight throughout the life of the license.

Roads

    35. One specific instance in which project boundary issues arise is
roads. Some settlements require licensees to pay for the upkeep of
roads leading to the project or to specific project works, such as
recreation areas. Several issues can arise with respect to such
measures. First, in order to decide whether a license should include a
requirement that road activities be funded, the Commission must
determine that the road is necessary for project purposes, as with a
road that is needed in order to reach the powerhouse or a road that is
the only way to reach a project recreation site. If the road merely
passes near the project and is used only incidentally for project
purposes, it may not be appropriate to require the licensee to maintain
it. The Commission must also be able to determine what part of the road
is needed for project purposes. Thus, it will be appropriate to develop
license conditions covering only the relevant portion of a long road
that at some point provides necessary access to a project, rather than
the entire road.
    36. Finally, if a road is deemed necessary for project purposes
such that the licensee is required to undertake ongoing activities with
respect to the road throughout the license term, the Commission may
require that the road be included within the project boundary, so that
the Commission can exercise its compliance jurisdiction to ensure that
the required activities take place. As indicated above, inclusion of a
road or a portion of a road within a project does not mean that the
licensee must obtain fee title to the road, only that it must obtain
sufficient rights, such as an easement, a lease, or a right-of-

way, to ensure that it can implement the required measures. There are
instances in which road owners, such as towns, counties, or the U.S.
Forest Service, have been reluctant to have roads included within
project boundaries. Parties should consider this issue carefully when
deciding to what extent they want the Commission to impose ongoing
obligations on licensees with respect to roads.

Reserve Commission Authority

Commission Approval

    37. As the agency charged with the administration of hydropower
licenses, the Commission must approve licensees' post-licensing plans.
That authority cannot be ceded to other entities. Thus, settlement
conditions that provide that the licensee must file specified plans
after obtaining the approval of other parties, such as resource
agencies, tribes, or non-governmental organizations, are acceptable if
they provide that the plans will be filed with the Commission for its
approval, and that the Commission will have the right to revise the
plans as it deems necessary. Provisions that envision plans (or
operational changes outside of the parameters approved in the license)
being approved by other entities but not the Commission are not
acceptable. In Virginia Electric Power Company, the Commission stated
that:

* * * we are pleased that the settling parties were able to develop
means for carrying out the goals of the settlement in a manner
consistent with the Commission's responsibilities under the Federal
Power Act. For example, Article 411, which calls for a bypassed
reach flow release plan, requires the licensee to develop the plan
in consultation with State and Federal resource agencies, and then
to file the plan for Commission approval, with the explicit
understanding that the Commission may require changes in the plan.

110 FERC ] 61,241 at P 35.

    38. Where, on the other hand, the parties establish a mechanism
that purports to give the licensee and other parties the ability to
alter license terms or obligations without first obtaining the
Commission's approval, the Commission has revised proposed license
articles to include its approval authority. See New York Power
Authority, 105 FERC ] 61,102 at P 65 (2003) (modifying proposed license
articles to require Commission approval of fishway plans).

Adaptive Management

    39. Settlement provisions often contemplate that adjustments to
measures required during the license term will be based on information
gleaned from ongoing monitoring or other post-license studies. This is
sometimes called adaptive management. Settling parties may agree, for
example, that a committee will meet and decide on an annual level of
spring flows for fishery purposes. To the extent that the proposed
flows are within parameters considered in the licensing proceeding and
determined to be appropriate, this does not pose a problem. A license
might provide that a licensee be required to release increased flows of
between 100 and 200 cfs for a period, to be determined on an annual
basis, between March 15 and June 15. It would be appropriate for the
committee to decide each year what flows within these parameters should
be released, with notification to the Commission. However, it would not
be appropriate to give the committee authority to require flows beyond
the limits set forth in the license, because the Commission would not
have had a prior opportunity to determine whether those flows were in
the public interest. In order for this to occur, the licensee would
have to file an amendment application with the Commission, seeking
authority to alter the terms of the license. For the same reason, it
would not be appropriate to propose that the license not contain flow
parameters at all, and simply leave flow decisions up to an adaptive
management group. As the Commission explained in Virginia Electric
Power Company:

We receive many settlements in which parties agree to adaptive
management measures, calling for future studies and possible changes
in project operations based on experience. For the Commission to
exercise its oversight authority, it is necessary that license
conditions embodying these measures provide for Commission review
and, where required, modification of proposed actions that go beyond
the limits imposed by the license.

110 FERC ] 61,241 at P 23. See also PacificCorp, 103 FERC ] 62,183 at P
35 (2003)

(``The Agreement provides for possible modifications to project
structures and operations during the license term. For example, the
proposed articles contain provisions to alter whitewater flow releases
in the event that monitoring attributes to these releases deleterious
impacts to biological resources. While such adaptive management
provisions are not uncommon in licenses issued in recent years, the
proposed articles would put project modifications under the direction
of [a committee]. It is, however, the Commission's role and
responsibility to give prior approval, through appropriate license
amendments, for all material amendments to the project and the
license'').

Other Issues

    40. In addition to the matters discussed above, there have been a
number of other instances over the last few years in which proposed
provisions that do not fit precisely into the more general categories
discussed above were not included in licenses. These provisions are
briefly summarized below, in order to provide additional guidance:
    (1) Provisions that would require amending the license for another
project. Section 6 of the FPA precludes the Commission from altering a
license without the licensee's consent. See Pacific Gas & Electric
Company, 97 FERC ] 61,084 (2001); Arizona Public Service Company, 109
FERC ] 62,241 (2004); FPL Energy Maine Hydro, LLC, 106 FERC ] 62,021
(2004).
    (2) Financial restrictions with respect to future surrender of a
project. See Northern States Power Company, 111 FERC ] 62,212 at P 33
(2005) (Commission has previously declined to impose generic project
retirement plans and licensee is anticipated to have sufficient
financial resources to satisfy any conditions on surrender); Northern
States Power Company, 111 FERC ] 62,123 at P 34 (2005) (same).
    (3) A provision purporting to restrict parties' statutory right to
seek rehearing. FPL Energy Maine Hydro, LLC, 106 FERC ] 62,021 at P 23
(2004).
    (4) A proposed license condition stating that the Commission would
not object to ``reasonable'' fees charged by licensees and operators of
recreational facilities within the project boundaries. See FPL Energy
Maine Hydro, LLC, 106 FERC ] 62,021 at P 24 (2004) (Commission
generally does not review reasonableness of such fees).
    (5) Provision tying future actions to the date that the licensee
accepts the license, contrary to general Commission practice of using
the more certain date of license issuance. See Virginia Electric Power
Company, 106 FERC ] 62,245 at P 46 (2004).
    (6) Settlement provision requiring that requesting party pay
licensee for whitewater releases above those set forth in settlement
not accepted, because licensee must bear cost of any releases required
by Commission. See Alcoa Power Generating, Inc., 110 FERC ] 61,056 at P
23, n.14 (2005).

Comment Procedures

    41. We invite interested persons to submit written comments on the
Commission's policy with regard to settlements in hydropower licensing

proceedings. Comments are due 45 days from the date of publication of
the policy statement in the Federal Register. Comments must refer to
Docket No. PL06-5-000, and must include the commenter's name, the
organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their
comments. Comments may be filed either in electronic or paper format.
    42. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission

accepts most standard word processing formats and requests commenters
to submit comments in a text-searchable format rather than a scanned
image format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a
paper filing. Commenters that are not able to file comments
electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments
to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    43. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described below.
Commenters on this policy statement are not required to serve copies of
their comments on other commenters.
    44. 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/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC

Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    By the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15800 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53627-53628]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23194]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional
Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board
of Directors' Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the
Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee (RSC), Regional
Entity Trustee (RET), Members' Committee and Board of Directors as
noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing
outreach efforts.
    The meetings will be held at the SPP Corporate Campus, 201 Worthen
Drive, Little Rock, AR 72223. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. All
meetings are Central Time.

SPP RSC

October 29, 2018 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. CDT)

SPP Members/Board of Directors

October 30, 2018 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. CDT)
The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

    Docket No. ER12-1179, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2850, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER14-2851, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2028, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2115, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER15-2237, Kanstar Transmission, LLC
    Docket No. ER15-2594, South Central MCN LLC
    Docket No. EL16-91, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL16-108, Tilton Energy v. Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Docket No. EL16-110, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-204, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-1341, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-2522, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER16-2523, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. RM17-8, Reform of Generator Interconnection Procedures
and Agreements
    Docket No. EL17-11, Alabama Power Co. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL17-21, Kansas Electric Co. v. Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
    Docket No. EL17-69, Buffalo Dunes et al. v. Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
    Docket No. EL17-89, American Electric Power Service Corporation v.
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., et. al.
    Docket No. EL17-92, East Texas Electric Cooperative
    Docket No. ER17-469, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-953, South Central MCN LLC
    Docket No. ER17-1575, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER17-1610, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. AD18-8, Reform of Affected System Coordination in the
Generator Interconnection Process
    Docket No. EL18-9, Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. Southwest Power
Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL18-12, ATX Southwest, LLC
    Docket No. EL18-13, Transource Kansas, LLC
    Docket No. EL18-14, Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC
    Docket No. EL18-15, Kanstar Transmission, LLC
    Docket No. EL18-16, South Central MCN, LLC
    Docket No. EL18-19, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL18-20, Indicated SPP Transmission Owners v. Southwest
Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL18-26, EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Docket No. EL18-35, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. EL18-58, Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority v. Oklahoma
Gas and Electric Co.
    Docket No. EL18-194, Nebraska Public Power District v. Tri-State
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. and Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-99, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-171, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-194, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-195, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-499, Southwestern Electric Power Company
    Docket No. ER18-500, Southwestern Electric Power Company
    Docket No. ER18-564, South Central MCN LLC
    Docket No. ER18-572, South Central MCN LLC.

    Docket No. ER18-831, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-939, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-1267, South Central MCN LLC
    Docket No. ER18-1632, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-1702, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-1872, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-1969, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-1970, Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-1974, Otter Tail Power, Inc..
    Docket No. ER18-2114, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2135, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2145, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2218, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2243, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2245, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2266, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2318, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2324, Northwestern Corporation
    Docket No. ER18-2326, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2358, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2385, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2430, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2310, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2431, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2343, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2349, Southwestern Electric Power Company
    Docket No. ER18-2374, Southwestern Electric Power Company
    Docket No. ER18-2382, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2383, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2404, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2430, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2431, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2437, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2445, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2450, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2376, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2474, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2494, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2499, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER18-2500, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER19-4, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER19-17, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. ER19-97, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Docket No. RR18-3, North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Docket No. TX18-1, AEP Energy Partners, Inc.
    This meeting is open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5937 or [email protected].

    Dated: October 18, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23194 Filed 10-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35267-35268]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-522-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on July 12, 2018, El Paso Natural Gas Company,
L.L.C. (EPNG), P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed a
prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210
of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
requesting authorization to install or upgrade appurtenant facilities
at various locations in Winkler and Yoakum Counties, Texas and in Eddy
and Lea Counties, New Mexico. Additionally, EPNG proposes to increase
the maximum allowable operating pressure for approximately 2,800 feet
of its 20-inch-diameter Line No. 1115 in Ector County, Texas
(collectively, Permian North Project). EPNG states that the Permian
North Project will provide 182,000 dekatherms per day of firm
transportation service for six shippers. Specifically, EPNG proposes to
install valves, actuators, station yard piping, and other auxiliary
equipment at the Keystone, Pecos River Eunice B/C, and Plains
Compressor Stations and the Ramsey North Meter Station. EPNG estimates
the cost of the Permian North Project to be approximately $12 million,
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, El

Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs,
Colorado 80944, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by fax at (719) 520-
4697.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: July 18, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15836 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P