Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2024 / Notices 14643 

1 18 CFR 41.2 (2022). 

2Commonwealth Edison Co., Docket No. FA21– 

5–000 (July 27, 2023) (delegated order) (hereafter, 

Delegated Order). 

3Audit of Commonwealth Edison Company’s 

compliance with its approved terms, rates, and 

conditions of its wholesale transmission formula 

rate; accounting requirements of the Uniform 

System of Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities 

and Licensees under 18 CFR part 101; reporting 

requirements of the FERC Form No. 1, Annual 

Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and 

Others, under 18 CFR 141.1; and, requirements in 

Preservation of Records of Public Utilities and 

Licensees under 18 CFR part 125, Commission 

Office of Enforcement Division of Audits and 

Accounting (July 27, 2023) (Audit Report). 

4 18 CFR 375.311 (2022). 

5 18 CFR 41.2. 

6 18 CFR 41.3 (2022). 

7 18 CFR 41.7 (2022). 

8 18 CFR 385.601 (2022). 

9 Delegated Order at P 2. 

10 Id. P 3. 

11 Id.; see also Audit Report, attach. A, ComEd 

Responses to Findings and Recommendations, at 

p.3 (requesting that Audit Staff Finding 3 and 

related recommendations related to ARO be held in 

abeyance pending ComEd submitting, and the 

Commission acting on, a single-issue filing under 

section 205 of the Federal Power Act). 

12 18 CFR part 41 (2022). 

13 Delegated Order at P 5. 

14ComEd Response at 1–2. ComEd states that, 

notwithstanding its challenge of the ARO issue, it 

agrees to revise its treatment of Account 108 ARO 

Depreciation Removals as recommended in the 

Audit Report. Id. at 1 n.2. Further, ComEd clarifies 

that it does not challenge the findings in Audit 

Report Issue 7 related to items other than MGP site 

remediation costs and it will take the requested 

corrective actions as to those other items. Id. at 1 

n.3. 

15 Id. at 1 (citing 18 CFR 41.2). 

16 Id. at 8 (quoting Audit Report at 48). 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. FA21–5–000] 

Commonwealth Edison Company; 

Order Establishing Paper Hearing 

Procedures and Establishing TrialType Hearing and Settlement Judge 

Procedures 

1. On August 28, 2023, pursuant to 

§ 41.2 of the Commission’s regulations,1

Commonwealth Edison Company 

(ComEd) filed a request for Commission 

review of certain findings and 

recommendations in the July 27, 2023 

order 2 and accompanying audit report 3

issued in this docket by the Director of 

the Office of Enforcement (Enforcement) 

under authority delegated to the 

Director by § 375.311 of the Commission 

regulations.4 In accordance with § 41.2 

of the Commission’s regulations,5

ComEd notified the Commission that it 

requested review of two contested 

issues by means of a shortened paper 

hearing procedure and one contested 

issue by means of a trial-type hearing. 

ComEd also requested settlement judge 

procedures concerning the one 

contested issue for which it requested a 

trial-type hearing. 

2. In this order, pursuant to § 41.3 of 

the Commission’s regulations,6 we 

direct the commencement of a paper 

hearing and establish paper hearing 

procedures for two contested issues, as 

requested. Pursuant to § 41.7 of the 

Commission’s regulations,7 we direct 

the commencement of a trial-type 

hearing and establish trial-type hearing 

procedures for one contested issue, as 

requested. Pursuant to § 385.601 of the 

Commission’s regulations,8 we also 

establish settlement judge procedures 

for the one contested issue set for trialtype hearing, as requested. 

I. Audit Report 

3. The Audit Report summarizes the 

review by Enforcement’s Division of 

Audits and Accounting (DAA), first 

announced in this docket on April 21, 

2021, of ComEd’s compliance with: (1) 

the approved terms, rates, and 

conditions of its transmission formula 

rate mechanism as provided in 

Attachment H–13A of the PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C. Open Access 

Transmission Tariff; (2) the accounting 

requirements of the Uniform System of 

Accounts Prescribed for Public Utilities 

and Licensees under 18 CFR part 101 

(2022) ; (3) the reporting requirements of 

the FERC Form No. 1, Annual Report of 

Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and 

Others, under 18 CFR 141.1 (2022); and 

(4) the requirements in Preservation of 

Records of Public Utilities and 

Licensees under 18 CFR part 125 

(2022).9 The Audit Report contained 11 

findings and 61 recommendations that 

require ComEd to take corrective action. 

The audit covered the period January 1, 

2017 through August 31, 2022. 

4. As described in the Delegated 

Order accompanying the Audit Report, 

ComEd notified DAA on June 29, 2023 

that ComEd disagreed with and 

expected to contest DAA’s findings and 

recommendations pertaining to: (1) the 

asset retirement obligations (ARO) to the 

extent that the ARO finding and 

recommendations are not held in 

abeyance; (2) the accounting 

misclassifications related to internal 

labor costs for remediation at 

manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites; and 

(3) the allocation of overhead costs to 

construction work in progress (CWIP).10

In the Delegated Order, the Director of 

Enforcement denied the requested 

abeyance for the ARO finding and 

recommendations.11

5. The Delegated Order stated that it 

served as notice, pursuant to part 41 of 

the Commission’s regulations,12 that 

ComEd may notify the Commission in 

writing, within 30 days of the issuance 

of the Delegated Order, as to whether it 

requests Commission review of the 

contested issues by a shortened paper 

hearing procedure or a trial-type hearing 

if ComEd contends that there are 

material facts in dispute that require 

cross-examination.13

6. As described below, on August 28, 

2023, ComEd timely filed a response to 

the Delegated Order. On September 8, 

2023, Enforcement staff filed an answer 

to ComEd’s response. On September 15, 

2023, ComEd filed an answer to 

Enforcement staff’s answer. 

II. ComEd Response and Election of 

Process 

7. In its response to the Delegated 

Order, ComEd elected Commission 

review by means of the shortened paper 

hearing procedures for two issues: (1) 

the accounting treatment of AROs 

(Audit Report Issue 3 and 

Recommendations 8–12); and (2) the 

accounting treatment of MGP site 

remediation costs (Audit Report Issue 7 

and Recommendations 34–43).14 ComEd 

states that, for these two issues, it 

elected shortened paper hearing 

procedures because there are no 

material facts in dispute. ComEd also 

elected Commission review by means of 

a trial-type hearing for one issue, the 

allocation of overhead costs to CWIP 

(Audit Report Issue 4 and 

Recommendations 12–21). ComEd states 

that, for this issue, it elected 

Commission review by a trial-type 

hearing because there are material facts 

in dispute that require crossexamination.15

8. First, ComEd asserts that the Audit 

Report raises disputed issues of material 

fact concerning the allocation of 

overhead costs to CWIP because the 

Audit Report contends that ComEd’s 

‘‘processes and procedures for allocating 

labor and related overhead costs to 

construction were not consistent with 

Commission accounting regulations,’’ 

and ‘‘may have led to overstated 

construction costs.’’ 16 ComEd asserts 

that these Enforcement staff findings 

raise several disputed issues of material 

fact, including: (1) What were ComEd’s 

processes and procedures, and were 

they appropriately designed and 

conducted in light of the Commission’s 

accounting rules and applicable 

precedent? (2) Did those processes and 

procedures properly determine the 

amounts of such overheads reasonably 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
14644 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2024 / Notices 

17 Id. at 8–9 (quoting Audit Report at 26). 

18 Id. at 9–10 (citing Audit Report at 48). 

19 Id. at 10 (citing Audit Report at 48–49). 

20 Id. at 10 n.31. 

21 Id. at 11. 

22Enforcement Staff Answer at 1–3 (arguing that 

ComEd has the additional burden to show why live 

witness testimony and testing the credibility of 

witnesses on the stand is required to resolve the 

factual dispute). 

23 Id. at 4. 

24Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is the parent 

company of ComEd. 

25Enforcement Staff Answer at 5. 26 Id. at 6; Audit Report at 45 (citing 18 CFR part 

101, General Instruction No. 9, Distribution of Pay 

and Expenses of Employees). 27Enforcement Staff Answer at 6. 28 Id. at 6–7. 29 Id. at 7–8. 

applicable to construction? and (3) Do 

those processes and procedures comply 

with the relevant requirements? 

9. Second, ComEd asserts that there 

also are disputed issues of material fact 

concerning the data on which the Audit 

Report relies. ComEd explains that the 

Audit Report contends that its analysis 

was based on ‘‘interviews of a 

randomized sample of ComEd’s 

employees whose labor costs were 

allocated to construction projects during 

the audit period and a review of a 

sample of timesheets associated with 

the employees.’’ 17 ComEd contends that 

this statement raises disputed issues of 

material fact, including: 

(1) Who was interviewed, how were 

they selected, and what were they 

asked? 

(2) What timesheets were reviewed 

and what did they reveal? and (3) Did 

the material reviewed support or 

contradict the Audit Report’s 

conclusions? 

10. Third, ComEd asserts that the 

Audit Report’s recommendation to 

remedy this issue—to retain an 

independent third-party entity to 

conduct a representative labor-time 

study for allocation of overhead costs 

incurred in 2023—raises disputed issues 

of material fact.18 ComEd contends that 

the disputed issues include: (1) How 

would the new study be implemented in 

practice? (2) Would that approach be 

appropriately designed and conducted 

in light of the Commission’s accounting 

rules and applicable precedent? (3) 

Would that approach properly 

determine the amounts of such 

overheads reasonably applicable to 

construction? and (4) Would that 

approach comply with the relevant 

requirements? 

11. Finally, ComEd asserts that the 

Audit Report’s remedy—to remediate 

the allocation of overhead costs to 

accounts dating back to 2017—raises 

disputed issues of material fact.19

ComEd contends that the disputed 

issues include: (1) Were ComEd’s 

overheads allocations going back to 

2017 reasonable? (2) Did the work done 

by the relevant personnel change from 

year to year? (3) If so, how could one 

appropriately restate the allocations for 

past years? (4) Is the ‘‘estimate’’ 

proposed by the Audit Report a 

reasonable and non-arbitrary way of 

reallocating overheads in years remote 

from the year in which the study was 

conducted? and (5) Would restating 

amounts for such prior years allow 

ComEd to properly recover its prudently 

incurred and reasonable costs? With 

respect to the fourth question, ComEd 

asserts that there are strong reasons to 

doubt that a labor-time study performed 

in 2023 will be a more accurate method 

of allocating overhead labor costs than 

the approach that ComEd used in the 

past to allocate overhead labor costs that 

were incurred several years earlier.20

ComEd states, for example, that in prior 

years, many ComEd employees were 

working on the Grand Prairie Gateway 

345kV transmission project. ComEd 

asserts that, because that project was 

completed in 2017, a labor-time study 

done in 2023 will not capture the 

considerable time that ComEd 

employees spent on that project. 

12. ComEd suggests that it could be 

beneficial to employ a settlement judge 

procedure prior to the trial-type hearing 

with the hope that a negotiated 

resolution of the overhead costs issue 

might be achievable.21

III. Enforcement Staff Answer 

13. Enforcement staff filed an answer 

asserting that ComEd’s response fails to 

identify any disputed issue of material 

fact and, if such an issue had been 

identified, fails to meet the additional 

requirement of showing why a trial-type 

hearing with cross-examination of 

witnesses would be necessary to resolve 

the issue, rather than a paper hearing.22

14. Enforcement staff contends that 

there are no disputed issues of material 

fact because Enforcement staff and 

ComEd agree as to what ComEd did and 

did not do to allocate overhead costs.23

Enforcement staff explains that ComEd’s 

overhead costs were accumulated into 

overhead pools and were allocated 

between construction and operating and 

maintenance projects using an 

allocation methodology. Enforcement 

staff states that ComEd categorized the 

overhead costs into two indirect cost 

overhead pools—Administrative and 

General (A&G) and General and 

Administrative (G&A). Enforcement staff 

states that the A&G overhead pool was 

used to accumulate costs such as 

information technology, legal, fixed 

assets, human resources, real estate, and 

Exelon 24 Business Service Company 

costs. Enforcement staff states that, to 

allocate A&G overhead pool costs, 

ComEd first reviewed each cost within 

its operating and maintenance budget to 

determine whether the cost was eligible 

for capitalization. Enforcement staff 

states that ComEd then allocated the 

eligible A&G overhead cost based on the 

ratio of capitalized labor cost over total 

labor cost. Enforcement staff states that 

the G&A overhead pool was used to 

accumulate overhead costs from ComEd 

departments that provided back-office 

support to capital-intensive 

departments.25 Enforcement staff states 

that, to allocate G&A overhead pool 

costs to construction, ComEd applied 

the weighted average overhead 

capitalization rate of the capitalintensive departments to the costs 

accumulated in the G&A overhead pool. 

Enforcement staff also asserts that the 

facts are clear as to what ComEd did not 

do to allocate its overhead costs: 

specifically, it did not base its allocation 

on actual time (through timecard 

distributions), or on a study of actual 

employee time spent on work relating to 

construction projects, as required by the 

Commission’s accounting regulation.26

15. Enforcement staff further contends 

that ComEd’s purported questions are 

general and abstract, with no 

identification of a factual issue that 

ComEd contends is disputed, no attempt 

to show that any such disputed fact is 

‘‘material’’ to a matter presently before 

the Commission to be decided, and no 

explanation of why such an issue 

requires live witness testimony as 

opposed to resolution through a paper 

hearing.27

16. Enforcement staff asserts that, 

given there are no material issues of fact 

to resolve regarding ComEd’s allocation 

of overhead costs, the Commission is 

left to resolve only a question of law: 

Did ComEd’s allocation of overhead 

costs comply with the Commission’s 

accounting regulations? Enforcement 

staff asserts that it does not believe that 

ComEd complied with the 

Commission’s regulations because it did 

not allocate overhead costs based on 

actual time or a study of actual 

employee time.28 Enforcement staff 

therefore asserts that the Commission 

should deny ComEd’s request for a trialtype hearing and set the question of 

law—the interpretation of the 

Commission’s accounting regulations 

for overhead construction costs—for 

paper hearing.29

17. With respect to ComEd’s request 

that the Commission employ settlement 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2024 / Notices 14645 

30 Id. at 8 n.14 (citing ComEd Response at 11). 

31ComEd Answer at 2–3 (quoting 18 CFR part 

101, Electric Plant Instruction No. 4(A), Overhead 

Construction Costs). 

32 Id. at 3–4. 

33 Id. at 2, 4, 5 (arguing that it is also a factual 

question whether a time study conducted in 2024 

is a reasonable proxy for the allocation of costs 

spent up to eight years earlier). 

34 Id. at 4. 

35 Id. (quoting Audit Report at 26). 

36 Id. at 4–5. 

37 Id. at 6. 

38We note that Enforcement staff’s answer to 

ComEd’s response was appropriately filed pursuant 

to Rule 213(a)(3) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.213(a)(3). 

39Procs. for Disposition of Contested Audit 

Matters, Order No. 675, 114 FERC ¶ 61,178, at P 37, 

order on reh’g & clarification, Order No. 675–A, 115 

FERC ¶ 61,189 (2006). 

40 Id.; see also 18 CFR 41.7. 

41 18 CFR 41.3. 

42Consistent with ComEd’s election, we do not 

set for hearing the findings in Issue 7 that relate to 

items other than MGP site remediation costs, as 

those findings are uncontested and ComEd has 

agreed to take the corrective actions directed by 

Enforcement staff. See ComEd Response at 1 n.3. 

43 In Order No. 675, the Commission stated that 

it will use the same standard for permitting 

interested entities to file memoranda in the 

shortened paper hearing procedures as it uses to 

permit interventions in other proceedings. In 

addition, the Commission stated that an interested 

entity may include in its initial memorandum filed 

pursuant to the shortened paper hearing procedures 

a motion to intervene in the proceeding. Order No. 

675, 114 FERC ¶ 61,178 at P 11 (citing 18 CFR 

385.214(b) (2022)); see FirstEnergy Corp., 185 FERC 

¶ 61,099, at P 21 & n.61 (2023) (stating that 

interventions are permitted in a contested audit 

proceeding in which the audited person elects to 

contest one or more audit findings or remedies in 

a shortened paper hearing procedure). 

44 18 CFR 41.4 (citing 18 CFR 385.706 (2022)). 

45 Id. § 41.5. 

46 Id. § 41.7. 

judge procedures, Enforcement staff 

notes that it has engaged in lengthy 

discussions with ComEd over a ninemonth period to attempt to resolve all 

issues in this audit proceeding without 

success.30

IV. ComEd Answer 

ComEd asserts that, under the 

Commission’s regulations, the issue is 

whether ComEd’s method of allocating 

overhead construction costs ‘‘reasonably 

appli[ed]’’ those costs to ‘‘particular jobs 

or units,’’ so that ‘‘each job or unit shall 

bear its equitable proportion of such 

costs.’’ 31 ComEd states that, to apply 

this guidance and determine which 

costs are properly recorded as overhead 

construction costs, ComEd conducts an 

annual study of personnel in various 

back-office departments and assigns 

their costs based on the results of that 

study.32 In response to Enforcement 

staff’s assertion that there is agreement 

between Enforcement staff and ComEd 

about ComEd’s cost allocation 

methodology, ComEd responds that it is 

unsure that there is any such agreement, 

but even if there was agreement, the key 

question is not what method ComEd 

used, but whether ComEd’s method was 

reasonable, which is inherently a factual 

one.33

18. ComEd asserts that the Audit 

Report is premised on factual 

conclusions based on Enforcement 

staff’s interviews.34 In particular, 

ComEd states that Enforcement staff’s 

evaluation of the reasonableness of 

ComEd’s method was based on 

‘‘interviews of a randomized sample of 

ComEd’s employees whose labor costs 

were allocated to construction projects 

during the audit period and a review of 

a sample of timesheets associated with 

the employees.’’ 35 ComEd states that the 

Audit Report does not disclose anything 

about the substance of those interviews 

or the methods used to analyze the 

results, which makes it impossible for 

either ComEd or the Commission to 

assess the Audit Report’s findings and 

recommendations on overhead 

construction costs.36

19. ComEd states that it continues to 

think that settlement judge procedures 

could be beneficial because a mediator 

can sometimes help adverse parties find 

a resolution.37

V. Discussion 

A. Procedural Matters 

20. Rule 213(a)(2) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.213(a)(2) (2022), 

prohibits an answer to an answer unless 

otherwise ordered by the decisional 

authority. We accept ComEd’s answer 38

because it has provided information that 

assisted us in our decision-making 

process. 

B. Substantive Matters 

21. In Order No. 675, the Commission 

amended its Part 41 regulations to 

expand due process by allowing an 

audited person who disputes findings or 

proposed remedies contained in an 

audit report to elect a shortened paper 

hearing procedure or a trial-type hearing 

to challenge disputed audit matters.39

The Commission stated that it would 

honor the audited person’s timely 

election unless a trial-type hearing is 

chosen and there are, in the 

Commission’s judgment, no disputed 

issues of material fact that require a 

trial-type hearing.40 In response to 

ComEd’s timely election, we establish a 

shortened paper hearing procedure for 

two contested issues, and we establish 

a trial-type hearing and settlement judge 

procedures for one contested issue, as 

set forth below. 

1. Shortened Paper Hearing Procedure 

22. Pursuant to § 41.3 of the 

Commission’s regulations,41 we direct 

the commencement of a paper hearing 

and establish paper hearing procedures 

concerning two contested issues, as 

requested by ComEd: (1) the accounting 

treatment of AROs (Issue 3 in the Audit 

Report and Recommendations 8–12); 

and (2) the accounting treatment of MGP 

site remediation costs (Issue 7 in the 

Audit Report and Recommendations 

34–43).42 The scope of the paper hearing 

is limited to these challenged findings 

and recommendations. 

23. In accordance with § 41.3, ComEd 

and any other interested entity, 

including Enforcement staff, shall file, 

within 45 days of this order, an initial 

memorandum that addresses the 

relevant facts and applicable law that 

support the position or positions taken 

regarding the matters at issue.43 Reply 

memoranda may be filed by participants 

who filed initial memoranda. Reply 

memoranda must be filed within 20 

days of the due date for initial 

memoranda. Pursuant to § 41.3, subpart 

T of part 385 of the Commission’s 

regulations shall apply to all filings. 

Further, pursuant to § 41.4, each entity’s 

memorandum should set out the facts 

and arguments as prescribed for briefs 

in Rule 706 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure.44 Section 

41.5 also requires that the facts stated in 

the memorandum must be sworn to by 

persons having knowledge thereof, 

which latter fact must affirmatively 

appear in the affidavit.45

24. eFiling is encouraged. More 

detailed information relating to filing 

requirements, interventions, and service 

can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/ 

media/5339. For other information, call 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call 

(202) 502–8659. 

2. Trial-Type Hearing and Settlement 

Judge Procedures 

25. With respect to the contested issue 

concerning the allocation of overhead 

costs to CWIP (Issue 4 in the Audit 

Report and Recommendations 13–21), 

we find that ComEd has raised issues of 

material fact that cannot be resolved 

based on the record before us and that 

are more appropriately addressed in a 

trial-type hearing. Therefore, pursuant 

to § 41.7 of the Commission’s 

regulations,46 we direct the 

commencement of a trial-type hearing 

and establish trial-type hearing 

procedures concerning the allocation of 

overhead costs to CWIP, as requested by 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
14646 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2024 / Notices 

47 Id. § 385.601. 

48ComEd Response at 11; ComEd Answer at 6. 

49 18 CFR 385.214; see FirstEnergy Corp., 185 

FERC ¶ 61,099 at P 21 & n.61 (stating that 

interventions are permitted in a contested audit 

proceeding in which the audited person elects to 

contest one or more audit findings or remedies in 

a trial-type hearing). 

50Enforcement staff is a participant in the trialtype hearing and settlement judge procedures. See 

18 CFR 385.102(b), (c) (2022). 

51 18 CFR 385.603. 

52 If the parties decide to request a specific judge, 

they must make their joint request to the Chief 

Judge by telephone at (202) 502–8500 within five 

days of this order. The Commission’s website 

contains a list of Commission judges available for 

settlement proceedings and a summary of their 

background and experience (https://www.ferc.gov/ 

available-settlement-judges). 

ComEd. The scope of the trial-type 

hearing is limited to these challenged 

findings and recommendations. 

Pursuant to Rule 601 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure,47 we also establish 

settlement judge procedures for this 

contested issue, as requested by 

ComEd.48

26. Any interested entity seeking to 

participate in this trial-type hearing 

shall file a motion to intervene pursuant 

to Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure 49 no later 

than 15 days after the date of 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

27. While we are setting the allocation 

of overhead costs to CWIP for a trialtype evidentiary hearing,50 we 

encourage efforts to reach settlement 

before hearing procedures commence. 

To aid settlement efforts, we will hold 

the trial-type hearing in abeyance and 

direct that a settlement judge be 

appointed, pursuant to Rule 603 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure.51 If parties desire, they may, 

by mutual agreement, request a specific 

judge as the settlement judge in the 

proceeding. The Chief Judge, however, 

may not be able to designate the 

requested settlement judge based on 

workload requirements, which 

determine judges’ availability.52 The 

settlement judge shall report to the 

Chief Judge and the Commission within 

60 days of the date of the appointment 

of the settlement judge concerning the 

status of settlement discussions. Based 

on this report, the Chief Judge shall 

provide the parties with additional time 

to continue their settlement discussions 

or provide for commencement of a 

hearing by assignment of the case to a 

presiding judge. 

The Commission orders: 

(A) A paper hearing and related 

procedures are hereby established 

concerning two contested issues, the 

accounting treatment of AROs and MGP 

site remediation costs, as set forth in the 

body of this order. 

(B) A trial-type hearing and related 

procedures, and settlement procedures 

are hereby established concerning one 

contested issue, the allocation of 

overhead costs to CWIP, as set forth in 

the body of this order. 

(C) Pursuant to the authority 

contained in and subject to the 

jurisdiction conferred on the 

Commission by section 402(a) of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act 

and the Federal Power Act (FPA), 

particularly § 205, 206 and 301 thereof, 

and pursuant to the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure and the 

regulations under the FPA (18 CFR 

chapter I), a public hearing shall be held 

concerning the allocation of overhead 

costs to CWIP, as discussed in the body 

of this order. However, the hearing will 

be held in abeyance to provide time for 

settlement judge procedures, as 

discussed in Ordering Paragraphs (D) 

and (E) below. 

(D) Pursuant to Rule 603 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.603, the Chief 

Judge is hereby directed to appoint a 

settlement judge in this proceeding 

within 45 days of the date of this order. 

Such settlement judge shall have all 

powers and duties enumerated in Rule 

603 and shall convene a settlement 

conference as soon as practicable after 

the Chief Judge designates the 

settlement judge. If parties decide to 

request a specific judge, they must make 

their request to the Chief Judge within 

five days of the date of this order. 

(E) Within 60 days of the appointment 

of the settlement judge, the settlement 

judge shall file a report with the 

Commission and the Chief Judge on the 

status of the settlement discussions. 

Based on this report, the Chief Judge 

shall provide participants with 

additional time to continue their 

settlement discussions, if appropriate, 

or assign this case to a presiding judge 

for a trial-type evidentiary hearing, if 

appropriate. If settlement discussions 

continue, the settlement judge shall file 

a report at least every 60 days thereafter, 

informing the Commission and the 

Chief Judge of participants’ progress 

toward settlement. 

(F) If settlement judge procedures fail 

and a trial-type evidentiary hearing is to 

be held, a presiding judge, to be 

designated by the Chief Judge, shall, 

within 45 days of the date of the 

presiding judge’s designation, convene a 

prehearing conference in these 

proceedings in a hearing room of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, or remotely (by 

telephone or electronically), as 

appropriate. Such a conference shall be 

held for the purpose of establishing a 

procedural schedule. The presiding 

judgeis authorized to establish 

procedural dates, and to rule on all 

motions (except motions to dismiss) as 

provided in the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure. 

By the Commission. Commissioner 

Danly is not participating. 

Issued: Issued December 8, 2023. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04055 Filed 2–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2024–0041; FRL–11698–01– 

OCSPP] 

Pesticides; Proposed Removal of 

Polytetrafluoroethylene From List of 

Approved Inert Ingredients for 

Pesticide Products 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to remove 

polytetrafluoroethylene (CAS No. 9002– 

84–0) from the current list of inert 

ingredients approved for use in food use 

and nonfood use pesticide products 

because this inert ingredient has been 

identified as a per- and polyfluoroalkyl 

substance (PFAS) that is no longer used 

in any registered pesticide product. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2024–0041, 

online at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Smith, Registration Division 

(7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001; main telephone number: 

(202) 566–1030; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1