[Federal Register: May 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28481-28482]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21my07-33]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 12767-001]
Rainier Engineering and Environmental, LLC; Notice Rejecting
Filing
May 11, 2007.
On March 20, 2007, Commission staff rejected the application, filed
November 13, 2006, by Rainier Engineering and Environmental, LLC
(Rainer) for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act \1\ to study the proposed Tapps Lake Dam Hydroelectric
Project No. 12767, to be located at Puget Sound Energy, Inc.'s Lake
Tapps Dam on the White River in Sumner, Pierce County, Washington. The
application was rejected for failure to include a readable map showing
a project boundary enclosing all proposed project facilities.\2\ On
April 19, 2007, Rainier requested rehearing of the Commission's
decision to reject their application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 797(f) (2000).
\2\ See 18 CFR 4.81(d) (2006). By letter issued January 18,
2007, Commission staff notified Rainer of the deficiency in its
application and gave Rainer 45 days to file an appropriate map to
cure the deficiency. Rainier timely filed additional maps on
February 28, 2007. However, Commission staff's March 20, 2007 letter
found that the newly-submitted maps also failed to meet the
requirements of section 4.81(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer does not attribute any errors to staff's rejection of its
application, but instead proffers assertedly appropriate maps to cure
its application's deficiency and requests reconsideration of its
application in light of its new submission.
Section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825l, requires
an aggrieved party to file its request for rehearing within 30 days
after the issuance of the Commission order and to set forth
specifically the ground or grounds upon which such request is based.
Rainier's rehearing request raises no specific allegations of error
with respect to the staff's order. Therefore, it must be rejected.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In addition, the pleading as filed is deficient because it
failed to include a Statement of Issues, as required by Revision of
Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue Identification,
Order No. 663, 70 FR 55,723 (September 23, 2005), FERC Statutes and
Regulations ] 31,193 (2005) as amended by Order 663-A, effective
March 23, 2006, to limit its applicability to rehearing requests.
Revision of Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue
Identification, Order No. 663-A, 71 FR 14,640 (March 23, 2006), FERC
Statutes and Regulations ] 31,211 (2006) (codified at 18 CFR
385.203(a)(7) and 385.713(c)(2) (2006)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 28482]]
In any event, the submission of additional factual evidence in a
request for rehearing is contrary to Commission policy,\4\ so Rainier's
newly-submitted maps would not have been accepted to reverse staff's
rejection of the application.\5\
It appears moreover that Rainier late filed \6\ its permit
application \7\ in competition with the preliminary permit application
filed by Don L. Hansen in Project No. 12685.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., Northeast Hydrodevelopment Corporation, 42 FERC ]
61,066 n. 6 (1988) (the Commission does not consider information an
applicant submits on rehearing of staff's dismissal of the
application, since the issue before the Commission is whether the
staff's dismissal was appropriate). See also, e.g., Koch Gateway
Pipeline Company, 75 FERC ] 61,132 at 61,456 (1996) (explaining
general policy against receipt of additional information on
rehearing).
\5\ Furthermore, the new maps did not cure the deficiencies in
Rainier's permit application in that they do not include a project
boundary that encloses all project features, including the
reservoir, and they do not delineate all project features, including
the project's dam, intake structure, and transmission line, as
section 4.81(d) of the Commission's regulations requires.
\6\ The August 10, 2006 notice of Mr. Hanson's application
required the filing of competing permit applications by 30 days
following October 10, 2006, i.e., by Thursday, November 9, 2006.
Rainier filed its competing application after business hours on
November 9, 2006. Under 18 CFR 385.2001(c)(2) (2006), any document
received after regular business hours is considered filed on the
next business day. Since Friday, November 10, 2006, was a holiday,
the next business day was Monday, November 13, 2006.
\7\ Finally, Rainier filed its application electronically, which
is prohibited by 18 CFR 385.2003(c)(1)(i) (2006), since preliminary
permit applications are not included among the documents that are
qualified for electronic filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice constitutes final agency action. Request for rehearing
this rejection notice must be filed within 30 days of the date of
issuance of this notice, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713 (2006).
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9682 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P