[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28481-28482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9682]


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

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