Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 17461 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Block Grant Program—State, Local 

and Tribal Allocation Formulas 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE or Department) is today 

publishing three formulas used to 

distribute funds allocated to (1) local 

government, (2) States, and (3) Indian 

tribes for the Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation Block Grant Program, as 

required by the Program’s authorizing 

legislation, Title V, Subtitle E of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–140). The purpose 

of Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Block Grant Program is to assist eligible 

local governments, States, and Indian 

tribes in implementing strategies to 

reduce fossil fuel emissions, to reduce 

total energy use, and improve energy 

efficiency. This notice provides the 

allocation formulas that are used to 

distribute funds to eligible entities. The 

formulas in today’s notice were 

previously provided as part of the 

funding opportunity announcement 

issued for the Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation Block Grant Program. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

EERE’s Information Center, at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

informationcenter/, or call toll-free at 1– 

877–EERE–INFO (1–877–337–3463), 

between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. EST, 

Monday–Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Department of Energy (DOE or 

Department) is publishing the formulas 

for allocation to States, units of local 

government, and Indian tribes 

established for the Energy Efficiency 

and Conservation Block Grant Program 

(EECBG Program or Program), as 

required by section 543(e) of the 

Program’s authorizing legislation, Title 

V, Subtitle E of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

Public Law 110–140 (EISA), as 

amended. In fiscal year 2009, the 

Program is funded with appropriations 

from the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 

111–5 (ARRA). 

ARRA appropriated $3.2 billion for 

the EECBG Program. The EECBG 

Program provides Federal grants to 

States, units of local government, Indian 

tribes, and consortia of these entities to 

reduce energy use and fossil fuel 

emissions, and for energy efficiency 

programs and projects. Grants to local 

governments are made in two 

allocations—(1) cities with populations 

of at least 35,000 or are one of the top 

ten highest populated cities and 

counties with a population of over 

200,000 or counties of any size 

population that are one of the ten 

highest-populated cities or counties of 

the State in which they are located 

(‘‘local government-alternative 1’’); (2) 

or cities with populations of at least 

50,000 and counties of at least 200,000 

(‘‘local government-alternative 2’’). The 

Program is administered by the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy (EERE) of the U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

Of amounts appropriated by ARRA, 

DOE will allocate $2.741 billion as 

described in section 543 of EISA, using 

the most recent and accurate population 

data available: 

• 34 percent to eligible units of local 

government-alternative 1 through 

formula grants; 

• 34 percent to eligible units of local 

government-alternative 2 through 

formula grants 

• 28 percent to States through 

formula grants; 

• 2 percent to Indian through formula 

grants; and 

• 2 percent for competitive grants to 

ineligible cities, counties, and Indian 

tribes. 

Of the remaining amounts provided 

by ARRA, DOE will allocate $398 

million in competitive grants to all 

entities eligible for Program funds as 

described above, and $61 million will 

be set aside by the Department for 

technical assistance to grantees and 

administrative costs. 

The funding allocations will be as 

follows: 

• $3,200,000,000 Appropriation in 

ARRA; 

Æ $61,000,000 Available to DOE for 

technical assistance to grantees and 

administrative costs; 

Æ $398,000,000 Competitive funds for 

all entities eligible for Program funds; 

Æ $2,741,180,000 EISA funds; 

• $1,863,880,000 Available for local 

governments; 

• $931,940,000 Available for 34% to 

Alternative 1; 

• $931,940,000 Available for 34% to 

Alternative 2; 

• $767,480,000 Available for 28% for 

States; 

• $54,820,000 Available for 2% to 

Indian tribes; and 

• $54,820,000 Available for 2% to 

competitive grants to ineligible cities, 

counties, and Indian tribes. 

EISA directs that the formula for 

grants to eligible units of local 

government are to be established by the 

Department according to the population 

served by the eligible unit of local 

government, the daytime population of 

the eligible unit of local government and 

other similar factors determined by 

Department (section 543(b)). EISA 

directs that of the amount allocated for 

States, the Department is to provide not 

less than 1.25 percent to each State, 

with the remainder distributed among 

the States based on a formula 

established by the Department. EISA 

directs the State formula to take into 

account the population of each State 

and any other criteria that the 

Department determines to be 

appropriate (section 543(c)). EISA 

directs that the amounts made available 

for Indian tribes is to be distributed 

based on a formula, which is to be 

established by the Department, taking 

into account any factors that the 

Department determines to be 

appropriate (section 543(d)). 

The first part of today’s notice 

describes the State and local 

government funding allocation formulas 

and data sources. The second part of 

today’s notice describes the Indian tribe 

funding allocation formula and data 

sources. 

Part One: EECBG State and Local 

Allocation Formulas 

I. Definitions 

While EISA directs the Department to 

provide grants to cities and counties 

that qualify as eligible units of local 

government, EISA does not define 

‘‘city,’’ ‘‘county,’’ or related terms. For 

the purposes of the EECBG Program, 

DOE is defining ‘‘city’’ to include 

certain city-equivalent units of local 

government. Specifically, a cityequivalent unit of local government 

such as a town, village or other 

municipality will be considered eligible 

if it is listed in the most recent Census 

of Governments as a currently 

incorporated entity, has a governance 

structure consisting of an elected official 

and governing body, is capable of 

carrying out the activities set forth in 

EISA, and meets the required 

population thresholds described above. 

Additionally, consolidated city-county 

governments will be considered as 

cities. 

For the purposes of the EECBG 

Program, a county will be considered 

eligible for direct formula grants from 

DOE if it is listed in the most recent 

Census of Governments as a currently 

incorporated county, has a governance 

structure with an elected official and 

governing body, is capable of carrying 

out the activities set forth in EISA, and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
17462 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 

meets the required population 

thresholds. To meet the population 

requirement, the county population 

must be at least 200,000 or the county 

must be within the 10 most populated 

counties of the State in which it is 

located. 

In evaluating county populations for 

eligibility for direct formula grants, DOE 

will not include the populations of 

cities located within county boundaries 

that are eligible for direct formula grants 

from DOE. For the purposes of this 

program, this population is referred to 

as the ‘‘county balance population.’’ In 

determining the formulas for funding 

distribution, DOE has determined that 

the EECBG Program achieves the most 

equitable funding allocations if done on 

a per capita basis. By removing the 

population of an eligible city from a 

county population, DOE has reduced 

the instances of double-counting 

persons who live in both an eligible 

city, which is located in an eligible 

county. DOE’s implementation 

approach is consistent with the 

approach developed by the Community 

Development Block Grant Program 

(CDBG) administered by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). This program allocation process 

is modeled after the CDBG program 

because EECBG addresses similar issues 

as a formula grant program using 

population and additional energyspecific data to determine allocations to 

local governments. 

For the purposes of this program, 

‘‘balance population’’ is the population 

that resides outside the jurisdictions of 

eligible local governments. City and 

county governments that do not meet 

the eligibility requirements described 

above for direct formula grants from 

DOE are eligible for program funds 

through the State in which they are 

located. 

For the purposes of the EECBG 

Program, ‘‘States’’ are the 50 United 

States, the District of Columbia and the 

following Territories of the United 

States: Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

DOE is not including the territories of 

Palmyra Atoll and Wake Atoll in its 

definition of ‘‘States.’’ The territories of 

Palmyra Atoll and Wake Atoll do not 

have significant permanent populations 

to warrant inclusion in the Program. 

Palmyra Atoll is a national Wildlife 

Refuge and access to Wake Atoll is 

restricted. (See, http://www.doi.gov/oia/ 

Firstpginfo/islandfactsheet.htm, last 

visited March 26, 2009.) The absence of 

permanent populations on Palmyra 

Atoll and Wake Atoll would make the 

inclusion of these Atolls superfluous. 

II. Population Data 

DOE relied on the most recent and 

accurate population data from the U.S. 

Census to determine eligibility and 

allocate funds under the formula. DOE 

used and modified, for program 

purposes, a database of publicly 

available Census data created for HUD’s 

CDBG Program that, pursuant to 

statutory requirement, was updated by 

the U.S. Census with annual population 

estimates for 2007. DOE modified 

HUD’s database to accommodate 

program requirements specific to 

EECBG Program as explained below. 

Determining the Population of Eligible 

Cities. In order to determine the identity 

of all eligible cities, DOE constructed a 

database using Census designated places 

(CDPs). CDPs are delineated for each 

decennial census as the statistical 

counterparts of incorporated places. 

DOE used the Census 2007 file of CDPs 

with updates to reflect challenges to the 

2007 population estimates submitted to 

and accepted by the Census Bureau. The 

list of successful challenges can be 

found at http://www.census.gov/popest/ 

archives/2000s/vintage_2007/ 

07s_challenges.html. 

For the purposes of this program, DOE 

includes the following clarifications to 

the records used to calculate the 

universe of cities that are eligible for 

this program: 

• In the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, Municipios are treated as cities. 

Though designated as counties by the 

Census, governments of Municipios 

have the functionality of city 

governments. 

• Towns, townships, and boroughs 

that are incorporated places are treated 

as cities. The governments of these 

places have the functionality of city 

governments. 

• For those populations residing in 

one incorporated place that is within 

another incorporated place, DOE credits 

that population to the first incorporated 

place. For example, in a State in which 

a town government has incorporated 

villages with the same authorities 

afforded city-equivalent governments 

within their geographic boundaries, the 

villages in towns are treated as cities. 

Since villages are recognized as 

potentially eligible units of local 

government, DOE subtracts their 

population from the total population of 

the town in which they lie. This is to 

avoid double-counting of populations. 

• A consolidated or unified citycounty government in which a city and 

a county overlap geographically and 

govern as one consolidated government, 

is considered by DOE as an eligible city. 

City-county governments have the 

functionality of city governments. 

Determining the Population of Eligible 

Counties. To determine the counties 

eligible for this program, DOE used the 

county balance population. Successful 

challenges to U.S. Census 2007 county 

population data were incorporated. DOE 

reconciled the 2007 Census of 

Governments Directory listing of County 

Governments with the list of counties 

used for the CDBG Program. Doing this 

captured only those counties with 

functional governments and without 

double-counting the population of 

consolidated city-county governments. 

In determining county balance 

populations, DOE identified a number 

of cities with geographic boundaries 

that cross the borders of multiple 

counties. In calculating county balance 

populations for those counties which 

contain only a part of an eligible city, 

DOE subtracted the portion of the 

eligible city’s population living within 

that county. 

For the purposes of this program, DOE 

includes the following clarifications to 

the records used to calculate the 

universe of counties that are eligible for 

this program: 

• The updated 2007 County file 

contains population estimates for 

counties and equivalents, including 

Alaska’s Boroughs and Louisiana’s 

Parishes. Counties that are not a part of 

the Census of Governments and are 

without governmental authority are not 

a part of the database, and are thus not 

eligible for direct formula grants. This 

pertains to some counties in 

Massachusetts, and Alaska, as well as 

all counties in Connecticut and Rhode 

Island. As defined by the Census of 

Governments, county governments in 

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

and Vermont perform only limited 

functions, and thus all counties in these 

States were determined to be ineligible 

for Program funds. There are also no 

counties in the District of Columbia. 

• Two counties—Arlington, VA and 

Menominee, WI—that have city-county 

consolidated governments were 

exceptions that were included in the 

county data files and were relocated to 

the city list, because, as explained 

above, city-county governments have 

the functionality of city governments. 

• DOE used the County Governments 

file from the 2007 Governments 

Integrated Directory (GID) from the U.S. 

Census Bureau to identify the countyequivalents with governments (available 

at http://harvester.census.gov/gid/ 

gid_07/options.html). 

Determining State Population. In 

order that State allocations are based on 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 17463 

the most accurate data, DOE 

incorporated and aggregated successful 

challenges to 2007 County Population to 

determine State population as was done 

for county population. DOE used the 

Census 2007 file of Census designated 

places (CDPs) with updates to reflect 

challenges to the 2007 population 

estimates submitted to and accepted by 

the Census Bureau. 

Incorporating Daytime Population. 

EISA directs DOE to include 

considerations of ‘‘daytime population’’ 

in the allocation formula for city and 

county calculations. The concept of the 

daytime population refers to the number 

of people who are present in an area 

during normal business hours, 

including workers. This is in contrast to 

the ‘‘resident’’ population present 

during the evening and nighttime hours. 

The Census Bureau creates estimates of 

daytime population by adding the total 

number of workers working in the place 

minus workers who live and work in the 

same place with the total resident 

population. The Census Bureau estimate 

of daytime population adjusts only for 

work-related travel, i.e., incommuters to 

an area and outcommuters from an area. 

Data necessary to adjust for shopping, 

school, recreation, tourism, etc. are not 

available. 

For EECBG Program purposes, the 

weighted population is comprised of 

29.75% daytime population and 70.25% 

resident population. DOE determined 

this weighting scheme based on an 

estimated 50 working hours out of a 

total 168 hours in a week (50/168 is 

equal to approximately 29.75%). 

Working hours are used because 

daytime population estimates are based 

on working commutes. 

In places where Census Daytime 

Population Estimates are not 

consistently available the following 

three guidelines were observed to make 

the data consistent over time: 

1. Where possible, the 2005–2007 

American Community Survey (ACS) 

was used to compute daytime 

population figures. 

2. In places where 2005–2007 ACS 

data are not available, DOE used 

daytime population data from the 2000 

decennial census. 

3. In places where no Census Daytime 

Population Estimates were available, 

2007 Census Population estimates were 

used. This applies to 24 locations, in 

three States: MI, NY, and VT. 

Since Census data for different 

resident population sources vary 

slightly from the 2007 population 

estimates and even more significantly 

from the 2000 census, DOE used a ratio 

process to make the differences 

consistent. This process applied the 

ratio of the resident population for the 

2007 Census estimate to the resident 

population that formed the basis for the 

particular daytime estimate. This 

calculation corrects data inconsistencies 

caused by using data from different 

years between the 2007 estimates used 

for allocation and the source of the data. 

• Using the 2007 population estimate 

as a base, this process calculates an 

estimated daytime population for 2007. 

• The ratio of the best available 

daytime population estimate to the 

resident population used in forming that 

daytime estimate is multiplied by the 

2007 population estimate. 

• The ratio of resident population to 

daytime population is therefore 

consistent between the 2007 estimates 

used for allocation and the source of the 

data. 

This process for cities is applied to 

counties and the city parts which lie in 

different counties to determine their 

balance daytime population. The 

American Community Survey does not 

have data available for these smaller 

areas, so the resident population ratio is 

again used to superimpose the daytime 

estimates on the smaller areas, which 

can then be subtracted from the 

respective counties. 

III. Local Governments and State 

Formulas 

Determining City Eligibility According 

to Section 543 of Title V, Subtitle E of 

EISA. In addition to the factors 

considered in the previous sections, 

EISA provides population thresholds to 

determine city eligibility. DOE 

determined whether a city meets the 

population criteria for eligibility by 

ranking each city based on its 

population, as determined in the 

previous section, relative to all other 

cities in its State. Cities were added to 

the allocation table according to the 

following: 

• A city with a population above 

50,000 is eligible for both Alternative 2 

and Alternative 1 funding. 

• If a city’s population is above 

35,000 but below 50,000, it is eligible 

for Alternative 1 funding only. 

• A city with a population that ranks 

within the ten highest populated cities 

in the State is eligible for Alternative 1 

funding, even if the city population is 

below 35,000. 

Determining County Eligibility 

According to Section 543 of Title V, 

Subtitle E of EISA. EISA provides 

population thresholds to determine 

eligibility in addition to the population 

data considerations in the previous 

section. DOE ranked each eligible 

county relative to all other counties in 

its State. Counties were added to the 

allocation table according to the 

following: 

• A County with a population of 

200,000 or more is eligible for both 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 funding. 

• A County with a population that 

ranks within the ten highest populated 

counties in the State is eligible for 

Alternative 1 funding only, even if the 

population is below 200,000. 

Determining State Eligibility and 

Weighted Population. The 2007 State 

file by HUD includes 2007 Population 

Estimates for the 50 United States, 

Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. 

According to Sec. 541(6) the term ‘State’ 

is defined as: 

• A State; 

• The District of Columbia; 

• The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; 

and 

• Any other territory or possession of 

the United States (as discussed 

previously, DOE is only including 

American Samoa, Guam, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). 

As stated in Sec. 543(c)(2), the 

formula for determining allocations to 

States is required to consider: 

• The population of each State; 

• Any other criteria that the Secretary 

determines to be appropriate. 

Three factors that are considered with 

equal weight in the formula are: 

• The total population for the State; 

• The population of the State after 

subtracting the populations of all 

eligible entities; 

• Total Energy Consumption, less 

consumption in the industrial sector. 

Total population is based on the 2007 

U.S. Census Population Estimate. For 

the U.S. Territories other than Puerto 

Rico, 2000 Census population data was 

used because the U.S. Census Bureau 

does not provide interim population 

estimates for U.S. Territories, with the 

exception of Puerto Rico. The remaining 

population of the State is calculated by 

subtracting the populations for all 

eligible cities and all eligible counties in 

each State. Total Energy Consumption is 

compiled from 2006 per capita energy 

use by sector data, the most recent 

available, from the EIA. For the U.S. 

Territories, consumption by sector data 

was unavailable. For each State and for 

each factor, the percent of total 

compared to all the States is calculated. 

The three percentages are then averaged 

and multiplied by the total population 

in the United States based on the 2007 

U.S. Census estimates data. This 

calculation results in a new population 

distribution that gives equal weight to 

the three factors mentioned above. The 

calculation is formally described in 

Appendix B. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
17464 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 

Funding Allocation Design. The 

EECBG Funding Allocation Calculator 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘the calculator’’) 

is a computer program which computes 

the pro-rata allocation levels for each 

eligible State and unit of local 

government. The total funds available 

for units of local government will be 

$931,940,000 under Alternative 1 and 

$931,940,000 under Alternative 2. The 

total funds available for States will be 

$767,480,000. 

Alternative 1 Funding—34%. First, 

the calculator uses an iterative 

algorithm to determine Alternative 1 of 

EISA. Then, thirty-four percent of the 

funds are allocated to local governments 

eligible under definition Alternative 1. 

The funds are apportioned to each local 

government according to their share of 

population relative to the entire set of 

eligible entities. A minimum level of 

funding is set at $50,000. The calculator 

then checks if any city or county was 

allocated less than $50,000. 

Governments which are (1) funded 

below the minimum amount and (2) are 

not eligible under the definition of 

Alternative 2, are allocated the 

minimum amount. The remaining funds 

are apportioned in the same manner to 

all other governments. Cities that fall 

below the $50,000 minimum on 

reapportionment are increased to the 

minimum level. This process repeats 

itself until no local government is 

funded at a level below the minimum. 

For more detail on this calculation see 

Appendix A. 

Alternative 2 Funding—34%. Another 

thirty-four percent of funds is allocated 

to those governments that are eligible 

under the definition of Alternative 2. 

The process is the same as the 

apportionment for those eligible under 

the definition of Alternative 1. In 

Alternative 2, funding allocations from 

Alternative 1 are included in the total 

used to check the minimum amount. 

The calculator adds Alternative 2 

funding to the amount received under 

Alternative 1 for any eligible entity 

receiving funding under Alternative 2. 

For more detail on this calculation see 

Appendix A. 

State Funding—28%. The process for 

allocating funds to States is nearly 

identical to the allocation algorithm for 

Alternative 1. EISA provides a statutory 

minimum funding allocation for States 

of 1.25% of the State allocation. At the 

level of funding established in ARRA, 

this minimum is $9,593,500. Using the 

iterative process, DOE calculates which 

States should be receiving the minimum 

amount of funding. DOE makes the 

minimum allocations. The remaining 

funds are then distributed pro rata based 

on the weighted population of States 

that are not designated to receive the 

minimum amount. For more detail on 

the math of this calculation see 

Appendix B. 

Final Output. Once calculations have 

been completed for the two alternative 

definitions, the amounts allocated to 

each eligible entity are summed, and 

two spreadsheets are written to an 

allocation file. The first contains all 

eligible units of local government and 

the second contains all States. The 

spreadsheets contain all relevant data 

used in the calculation including each 

final allocation rounded to the nearest 

one hundred dollars. A summary text 

file is also written containing the total 

of all grants to be received by each State. 

Appendix A: Local Government 

Allocation Formulas 

ALTERNATIVE 1: 

A

m

i1 =

 if receiving minimum amount of funding

else 

⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎡( ) − × ( ) ⎣ ⎤

⎦

=

WP l F M m

WP

WP

i

T

i

× ×1

i e f daytime population estimates available + 1

 

dE d D i i ( ) −

 

else 

Ei

 

⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩

⎪

D = E i

i iii

i

T k Ak m

n

PwW

P

WP WP

× +− ( )

= ≠

∑ 1

ALTERNATIVE 2: 

A A

WP l F

WP

m

F

l l

i i

i

T

2 1

2

2

1 2

50 000

2 741 000 000

0 34

= +

× × ( )

=

=

= =

$ ,

$, , , ]

.

d =118 168 /

Ai1 = Total amount of funding allocated to 

Government i under Definition 

Alternative 1 

F = Total amount of EECBGP program 

formula funding allocation 

l1 = Percentage of total allocations available 

to Local Governments eligible under 

definition Alternative 1 

l2 = Percentage of total allocations available 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEN15AP09.003</MATH> EN15AP09.004</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 17465 

to Local Governments eligible under 

definition Alternative 

\WP\i = Weighted populations average used 

to allocate funding 

\WP\T = Sum of all weighted populations for 

which the minimum funding level is not 

designated 

Di = Daytime Population estimate normalized 

to 2007 Population estimate 

d = daytime coefficient 

Ei = 2007 Population Estimate for 

Government i 

M = number of governments receiving 

minimum funding level m 

m = minimum amount of funding each entity 

must receive 

n = number of eligible local governments 

n2 = number of local governments eligible 

under Alternative 2 only 

Pi = Total residential population based on 

ACS 2005–2007 or Census 2000 

Wi = Workers working in the jurisdiction of 

government i based on ACS 2005–2007 

or Census 2000 

Wi = Workers living in the jurisdiction of 

government i based on ACS 2005–2007 

or Census 2000 

Note: For Counties, all population figures 

are adjusted to reflect only the balance of 

their population excluding the populations of 

any eligible entities therein. For a local 

government that is eligible under only 

Alternative 1 and with a weighted population 

(|WP|) above 12,000, this works out to: 

A

E E PwW

P

i

i i iii

i

1

118

168

50

168 =

⎛ ×

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ +

×× +− ( )

×

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎡

⎣

⎢ ⎤

⎦

⎥

⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩⎪

⎫

⎬

⎪

⎭⎪

× ×− × [ ]

⎛ ×

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ +

×× +− ( )

(. ) ( ) 0 34

118

168

50

16

F Mm

Ek E PwW k kkk

1 8×

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩⎪

⎫

⎬

⎪

≠ ⎭⎪ ∑Ak m Pk

n

For a local government receiving 

funding under alternative 2, this works 

out to: 

A

E E PwW

P

i

i i iii

i

2 =

⎛ ×

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ +

×× +− ( )

×

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎡

⎣

⎢ ⎤

⎦

⎥

⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩

118

168

50

168 ⎪

⎫

⎬

⎪

⎭⎪

× ×− × [ ]

⎛ ×

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ +

×× +− ( )

(. ) ( ) 0 34

118

168

50

16

F Mm

Ek E PwW k kkk

8

118

168

×

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩⎪

⎫

⎬

⎪

⎭⎪

⎢

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎥

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

+

⎛ ×

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟

≠

∑ P

E

Ak 1 m k

n

i +

×× +− ( )

×

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎡

⎣

⎢ ⎤

⎦

⎥

⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩⎪

⎫

⎬

⎪

⎭⎪

× ×

50

168

0 34

118

E PwW

P

F i iii

i

(. )

⎛ ×

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ +

×× +− ( )

×

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟ ⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩⎪

⎫

⎬

⎪

⎭⎪

⎢

⎣

⎢

∑ E E PwW

P

k k kkk

k

n

168

50

168

2

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎥

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

Appendix B: State Allocation Formulas 

State Formula: 

A

m

i1 =

 if receiving minimum amount of funding

else 

⎧

⎨

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎡( ) − × ( ) ⎣ ⎤

⎦

= ⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟× ++

WP l F M m

WP

WP C

C

B

B

E

E

i

T

i

i

T

i

T

i

× ×1

1

3 T

T

T k Ak m

n

T i

T i

T i

E

WP WP

C C

B B

E E

m= s F

F =

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟×

=

=

=

=

× ×

≠

∑

∑

∑

∑

0.0125

$2,741,000,000

s = 0.28


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEN15AP09.005</MATH> EN15AP09.010</MATH> EN15AP09.006</MATH>
17466 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 

s = Percentage of total allocations available 

to State Governments 

M = number of governments receiving 

minimum funding level m 

m = minimum amount of funding each entity 

must receive 

n = number of State Governments 

/WP/T = Sum of all weighted populations for 

which the minimum funding level is not 

designated 

/WP/i = Weighted population which accounts 

for one third total population, one third 

balance population (those living in 

ineligible entities), and one third nonindustrial energy consumption 

Ci = Energy consumption less the industrial 

sector’s consumption for State i 

Ei = 2007 Population Estimate for State i 

Bi = Balance Population for State i after 

subtracting the populations of eligible 

cities and counties in State i 

ET = Sum of all Population 2007 Estimates for 

States, or in the case of territories 2000 

Census population 

CT = Sum of energy Consumption minus 

industrial use for all States, except in 

U.S. territories where total energy 

Consumption is included due to lack of 

data 

BT = Sum of all Balance Populations for the 

States 

For a State not receiving the 

minimum amount of funding, the 

equation looks like: 

A

E C

C

B

B

E

E

sF Mm

WP

i

T i

T

i

T

i

T

k

Ak m

n =

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟× ++

⎛

⎝

⎜ ⎞

⎠

⎟××− × [ ]

≠

∑

3

1

( )( )

Part Two: EECBG Indian Tribe 

Allocation Formula 

I. EECBG Tribal Allocation 

Section 543(d) of Title V, Subtitle E of 

EISA provides that, ‘‘of amounts 

available for distribution to Indian tribes 

under subsection (a)(3), the Secretary 

shall establish a formula for allocation 

of the amounts to Indian tribes, taking 

into account any factors that the 

Secretary determines to be appropriate.’’ 

Part Two of this notice applies 

specifically to the Tribal Allocation, as 

described in section 543(a)(3), for which 

the total funds available will be 

$54,820,000. 

II. Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

Block Grant Tribal Formula 

Defining Eligible Indian Tribes 

As defined by section 541(4) of Title 

V, Subtitle E of EISA, ‘‘ ‘Indian tribe’ has 

the meaning given the term in section 4 

of the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act.’’ The Indian 

Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act states that, ‘‘ ‘Indian 

tribe’ means any Indian tribe, band, 

nation, or other organized group or 

community, including any Alaska 

Native village or regional or village 

corporation as defined in or established 

pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688), which is 

recognized as eligible for the special 

programs and services provided by the 

United States to Indians because of their 

status as Indians’’ (25 U.S.C. 450b). 

The Tribal Allocation for the EECBG 

Program will be distributed among the 

562 Federally recognized Indian tribes, 

listed in Indian Entities Recognized and 

Eligible to Receive Services from the 

United States Bureau of Indian Affairs 

published by Department of Interior’s 

Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Federal 

Register on April 4, 2008, 73 FR 18553; 

and the 12 Alaska Native regional 

corporations established pursuant to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (33 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). 

Formula Methodology. Given the 

relatively broad nature of the statutory 

language (e.g., ‘‘taking into account any 

factors that the Secretary determines to 

be appropriate’’), the Department has 

taken the opportunity with the Tribal 

Allocation to improve upon a formula 

based solely on population and tailor 

the distribution of funds to have the 

greatest impact in meeting the needs of 

Indian tribes most affected. However, 

the formula will draw heavily on 

relevant existing formulas and data 

sources, which were developed and are 

used by the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of 

Native American Programs’ (ONAP) 

Indian Housing Block Grant Program 

(IHBG), and EERE’s Office of 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental 

Program’s (WIP) Weatherization 

Assistance Program (WAP). 

Summary of Formula. An explanation 

of the allocation formula is set forth 

below. The formula is calculated based 

on population data from the 2000 U.S. 

Decennial Census, as adjusted for birth 

and death rates provided by the 

National Center of Health Statistics used 

by the Indian Health Service, and 

heating and cooling degree day data 

from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Formula Factors: The formula is 

composed of two weighted factors. The 

first factor (F1) is the Tribal Population 

Factor. The next factor, The Tribal 

Climate Factor (F2), represents the 

climatic conditions in each Indian 

tribe’s State, derived from heating and 

cooling degree days. 

F1 Tribal Population Factor. The first 

factor in the formula is the Tribal 

Population Factor. This allocates more 

funds to Tribes with larger populations. 

In the formula, the Tribal Population 

Factor is represented as the ratio of each 

Indian tribe’s American Indian and 

Alaska Native (AIAN) population to the 

National Total Tribal AIAN population. 

This factor is weighted at 0.75. For an 

explanation of the weighting scheme, 

please see Weighting of the Formula 

Factors below. 

The Tribal Population Factor is 

expressed, 

F1 = WF1 × (Indian Tribe’s AIAN 

Persons/Sum of all Tribes’ AIAN 

Persons) 

Where, 

WF1 = Population Weighting Factor (0.75) 

Accumulating population data for 

Indian tribes presents many obstacles, 

including but not limited to questions 

regarding coordinating an Indian tribe’s 

geographic area with available data 

sources and inaccuracies in available 

data. Fortunately, HUD maintains a 

database for the need-based portion of 

the IHBG formula, which includes 

AIAN population data by Formula Area 

and as adjusted for birth and death rates 

provided by the National Center of 

Health Statistics used by the Indian 

Health Service, as defined in the IHBG 

regulations (see 24 CFR 1000, Subpart D 

for a definition of Formula Area and the 

methodology used under HUD’s IHBG 

Program). The EECBG Program uses this 

HUD database in its calculation of the 

Tribal Allocation formula. The data that 

is used is that which HUD used in its 

allocation of IHBG fiscal year 2008 

funds. This is the most recent version of 

this data and includes population 

estimates for 2007, with updates based 

on successful challenges from that year. 

Using this database allows DOE to 

comply with the legislative change in 

ARRA, which requires that the most 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEN15AP09.007</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 17467 

recent accurate population updates be 

used. 

Following HUD IHBG precedent, 

Indian tribes with populations of ‘‘zero’’ 

are considered eligible for Tribal 

Allocation funds. This is due to the fact 

that Census data often does not 

accurately reflect true AIAN 

populations in a Formula Area. 

The U.S. Census Bureau tracks two 

sets of population numbers for all 

Indian tribes—single-race and multirace. An Indian tribe’s single-race 

population number includes people 

who identify themselves only as an 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

(AIAN) person. The multi-race 

population number includes people 

who identify themselves only as an 

AIAN person and those who identify as 

AIAN in combination with one or more 

additional races. Since the definition of 

multi-race includes all single race 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

persons, the multi-race population of 

any given tribe is always larger than or 

equal to the single race population. But, 

the allocation formula compares a 

tribe’s population to the National Total 

AIAN population. 

The single race population of each 

tribe is compared to the total single race 

nationally. The multi-race of each tribe 

is compared to the total multi-race 

population nationally. In some cases the 

single race to national total single race 

for a given tribe will produce a larger 

ratio than the comparison of multi-race 

population and vice versa. To ensure 

that each Indian tribe receives the 

greatest allocation possible the tribal 

allocation formula is calculated twice, 

first using single-race population data 

and second using multi-race population 

data. The greater of the two allocations 

is then selected for each Indian tribe. 

The Department uses a methodology 

whereby the population value that leads 

to the greatest funding level for each 

Indian tribe is included in the 

calculation. HUD’s IHBG Program has 

incorporated such a modification into 

its formula, to ensure that each Indian 

tribe receives the greatest allocation 

possible. The EECBG Program will also 

use this methodology in making its 

tribal formula allocations. A full 

explanation of this method is provided 

below at Single- Versus Multi-Racial 

Population Modification. 

F2 Tribal Climate Factor. The second 

factor, the Tribal Climate Factor, 

addresses the need for energy generated 

by weather conditions and the disparity 

of climatic conditions in different 

regions. Building retrofits and other 

energy efficiency and conservation 

measures can have a greater impact in 

regions experiencing severe climatic 

conditions relative to regions 

experiencing mild seasonal variations. 

Given that more than half of all eligible 

Indian tribes are located within the 

State of Alaska and the extreme climatic 

conditions experienced in that State, 

addressing climate disparity is of 

particular importance. Energy 

consumption data, which was selected 

by the Department as a criterion for the 

State allocation formula, was considered 

for use in the Tribal formula. However, 

tribal-specific energy use data is 

unavailable, and State energy 

consumption on a per capita basis is not 

comparable to tribal energy 

consumption on a per capita basis. 

Thus, climate data is the best indicator 

available to account for disparities in 

energy demand. 

The Tribal Climate Factor is obtained 

by adding the heating degree days 

(HDD) and cooling degree days (CDD) 

for each Indian tribe’s State, treating the 

energy needed for heating and cooling 

proportionately. State data are used due 

to the lack of verifiable site-specific 

data. The calculation of this factor is 

based largely on the climate factor 

developed for EERE’s WAP formula 

allocation. The Tribal Climate Factor is 

weighted at 0.25. For an explanation of 

the weighting scheme, please see 

Weighting of the Formula Factors 

below. 

The Tribal Climate Factor is 

expressed, 

F2 = WF2 × (Indian Tribe’s State 

Climate Factor/Sum of All Tribes’ 

State Climate Factors) 

Where, 

WF2 = Climate Weighting Factor (0.25) 

and State Climate Factor is given by, 

State Climate Factor = (HDD State Ratio + 

CDD State Ratio) 

The State HDD and CDD Ratios are 

expressed, 

State HDD Ratio = State HDD/National 

Median HDD 

State CDD Ratio = (State CDD/National 

Median) × 0.1 

Where, 

Cooling Consumption (0.49 Quadrillion Btu)/ 

Heating Consumption (4.79 Quadrillion 

Btu) = 0.1 

The ratio of cooling to heating energy 

consumption reflects the fact that 

nationally households use, on average, 

one tenth as much energy for cooling as 

for heating. National heating 

consumption equals 4.79 quadrillion 

British Thermal Units (Btu) and air 

conditioning (cooling) consumption 

equals 0.49 quadrillion Btu. Cooling 

consumption divided by heating 

consumption rounds to 0.1. National 

data are used because of the absence of 

complete State-specific data. 

In order to account for the variation 

in weather in a simple but equitable 

manner, DOE compares each Indian 

tribe’s State’s (or States’) climate to the 

National Median. Each State’s HDD and 

CDD are divided by the series’ median 

values. Using the median as the 

denominator ensures that half of the 

States would fall above 1 and half 

would fall below 1. A State HDD Ratio 

(HDD divided by the median) greater 

than 1 indicates a State with relatively 

cold winters, while a value greater than 

1 for a State CDD Ratio indicates a State 

with a relatively warmer summer. To 

find the median of any odd series of 

numbers, the series is arranged in 

ascending order and the value that 

occurs in the middle of series is chosen 

as the median. The series relevant to the 

Tribal Climate Factor is odd because it 

consists of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia. The median value occurs 

at the 26th observation (State). The 

median was chosen, rather than the 

mean, because of its characteristic of 

being ‘‘insensitive’’ to extreme heating 

and cooling values, such as those found 

in States like Alaska and Florida which 

tend to skew or pull the mean or average 

towards one extreme or another. Each 

State CDD Ratio is multiplied by 0.1. 

The final State Climate Factor for each 

State is then the sum of the State HDD 

and CDD Ratios. The final Tribal 

Climate Factor for each Indian tribe is 

the result of dividing each Indian tribe’s 

corresponding State Climate Factor by 

the sum of all Indian tribes’ State 

Climate Factors. This step normalizes 

the climate factor, so that the sum of all 

Tribal Climate Factors will now equal 1. 

For those Indian tribes whose Formula 

Areas are found in more than one State, 

an average of the State Climate Factors 

is used. 

The formula uses the thirty year 

averages (1971–2000) of heating and 

cooling degree days as reported by 

NOAA to account for climatic 

conditions. Heating and cooling 

consumption data were obtained from 

Table 28 of the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) Household 

Energy Consumption and Expenditures 

1990. 

Weighting of the Formula Factors. In 

the allocation formula, the Tribal 

Population Factor is weighted at 0.75 

and the Tribal Climate Factor is 

weighted at 0.25. This weighting 

scheme was designed to ensure that the 

tribal formula is consistent with other 

EECBG formulas (local governments and 

State), in that population will play the 

predominant role in determining an 

entity’s allocation. As with the State 

formula, the factor related to energy (in 

the case of Indian tribes climatic 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
17468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 

conditions, and in the case of States 

energy use) is given a lesser, though still 

significant, weight. This allows the 

formula to adjust allocations based on 

the variations in energy demand 

nationwide, without skewing them 

dramatically away from a per capita 

basis. 

Formula Share. The above factors are 

combined into a single formula by 

summing the Tribal Population Factor 

(F1) and the Tribal Climate Factor (F2) 

to find each Indian tribe’s formula 

share. 

The Tribal Formula Share is expressed, 

Tribal Formula Share = Tribe’s F1 + 

Tribe’s F2 

Where, 

The Sum of All Tribal Formula Shares = 1 

Each Indian tribe’s share of the Tribal 

Allocation is then calculated by 

multiplying the total Tribal Allocation 

by each Indian tribe’s formula share. 

The Tribal Formula Allocation is given 

by, 

Tribal Formula Allocation = Tribal 

Allocation × Indian Tribe’s Tribal 

Formula Share 

Minimum Level of Funding. The 

minimum level of funding for Tribal 

Formula Allocations is $25,000. This is 

based on the total amount of available 

funding and HUD IHBG precedent. 

Though currently the need-based 

portion of the IHBG allocation formula 

is a set percentage of funds, for many 

years a minimum amount of $25,000 

was employed and deemed adequate by 

HUD as well as the Indian tribes. 

A direct computation of the allocation 

formula will produce an allocated 

amount for each Indian tribe, in which 

some tribes may receive an allocation 

value less than $25,000. To resolve this, 

an algorithm is used to make multiple 

passes through the list of Indian tribes, 

to check if any were allocated less than 

$25,000. If a Tribal Formula Allocation 

is calculated to be below $25,000, this 

algorithm assigns the tribe the minimum 

value, subtracts this value from the total 

Tribal Allocation, and then locks-out 

the Indian tribe from further passes. 

Because some Indian tribes may fall 

close to the minimum funding mark in 

the first pass, when reallocating funds, 

they may fall below the $25,000 

minimum. The algorithm makes another 

pass of the remaining Indian tribes, 

calculating the new Tribal Formula 

Allocation and checking again for levels 

below $25,000. This process repeats 

itself until no Indian tribe is funded at 

a level below the minimum. 

Single- Versus Multi-Racial 

Population Modification. As discussed 

above at F1 Tribal Population Factor, 

since differences in single-race and 

multi-race populations may lead to 

significantly different funding levels, it 

is important to incorporate into the 

overall calculation a selection process 

whereby the population value that leads 

to the greatest funding level for each 

tribe is chosen. Therefore, the EECBG 

Program will use the following method, 

modeled after that of HUD’s IHBG 

Program, in calculating the final Tribal 

Formula Allocations: 

1. The Tribal Formula Allocations are 

calculated using both the Single-Race 

AIAN Persons data and the Multi-Race 

AIAN Persons numbers for each Indian 

tribe. 

2. The higher of the two Tribal 

Formula Allocations is selected for each 

Indian tribe. 

3. The sum of the allocations resulting 

from the selection process described in 

Step 2 will be greater than the total 

funds available for Tribal Allocation. 

Therefore, an across the board reduction 

of the Tribal Formula Allocations is 

made to ensure that the sum of all 

allocations is within appropriation 

levels. 

4. A pro-rata reduction factor is 

calculated by subtracting the total funds 

available to the Tribal Allocation from 

the sum described in Step 3, and then 

dividing the remainder by that same 

sum. The pro-rata factor is applied to 

each Tribal Formula Allocation. 

5. As a result of the calculation 

described in Step 4, some Tribal 

Formula Allocations will drop below 

the minimum of $25,000. These Indian 

tribes are assigned the minimum value, 

a sum of all minimums assigned is 

subtracted from the total Tribal 

Allocation, and the tribes receiving the 

minimum are removed from further 

calculations. This produces a new total 

funds available to the Tribal Allocation 

and a new sum of allocations. 

6. For the remaining Indian tribes, a 

new pro-rata reduction factor is 

calculated using the new Tribal 

Allocation and sum of allocations 

figures described in Step 5, and then 

applied to each remaining allocation as 

described in Step 4. 

7. Steps 5–6 are repeated, until 

eventually, no Indian tribes are below 

the minimum allocation after the prorata reduction factor is applied. At this 

point the process stops, as all Tribal 

Formula Allocations have been 

calculated. 

Final Output. 

Once calculations have been 

completed for the Single- Versus MultiRacial Population Modification, the 

amounts allocated are rounded to the 

nearest one hundred dollars. These are 

the final Tribal Formula Allocations. 

For a complete version of the formula 

detailed in Part II, see Appendix C. 

Appendix C: Tribal Allocation Formula 

A WF P

P

WF

HDD

HDD

CDD

CDD

i

i

i

s s

= +

+ ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

∑

1 2

0 1

Indian tribes

Indi

.

∑ an tribes + ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟

⎢

⎣

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎥

⎦

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎧

⎨

⎪

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎪

HDD

HDD

CDD

CDD

s s 0 1.

⎫

⎬

⎪

⎪

⎭

⎪

⎪

F

Ai = Indian tribe i’s Tribal Formula 

Allocation 

WF1 = Population Weighting Factor 

Pi = Indian tribe i’s AIAN Persons 

SIndian tribes Pi = Sum of all Tribes’ AIAN 

Persons 

WF2 = Climate Weighting Factor 

HDDs = Heating Degree Days for States 

CDDs = Cooling Degree Days for States 

|HDD| = National Median HDD 

|CDD| = National Median CDD 

Indian tribes ∑ + Sum of all Tribe ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ = HDD

HDD

CDD

CDD

s s 0 1. s’ Climate Factors


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALSEN15AP09.009</MATH> EN15AP09.011</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 17469 

F = Tribal Allocation 

Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary. The Secretary of Energy has 

approved publication of this notice. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 8, 

2009. 

Steven G. Chalk, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. E9–8609 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 13342–000] 

Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; 

Notice of Preliminary Permit 

Applications Accepted for Filing and 

Soliciting Comment, Motions To 

Intervene, and Competing Applications 

April 8, 2009. 

On December 9, 2008, Hydro Energy 

Technologies, LLC filed an application, 

pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal 

Power Act, proposing to study the 

feasibility of the Berlin Lake 

Hydroelectric Project, to be located on 

the Mahoning River, in Portage and 

Mahoning Counties, Ohio. 

The proposed Berlin Lake Project 

would be located at: (1) The existing 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Berlin 

Lake Dam, which is 663.5 feet long and 

96 feet high; and (2) an existing 5,500- 

acre reservoir with a water surface 

elevation of 1,032 feet mean sea level. 

The proposed project would consist 

of: (1) A new powerhouse containing 

one or more turbine/generators with a 

total installed capacity of 2.5 megawatts; 

(2) a new 90-inch-diameter, 250-footlong penstock; (3) a new 0.5-mile-long, 

12.5-kilovolt transmission line; and (4) 

appurtenant facilities. The Berlin Lake 

Project would have an estimated average 

annual generation of 12,155 megawattshours, which would be sold to a local 

utility. 

Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony J. 

Marra Jr., Managing Partner, 31300 

Solon Rd., Suite 12, Solon, Ohio 44139, 

(440) 498–1000. 

FERC Contact: John Ramer, (202) 502– 

8969. 

Deadline for filing comments, motions 

to intervene, competing applications 

(without notices of intent), or notices of 

intent to file competing applications: 60 

days from the issuance of this notice. 

Comments, motions to intervene, 

notices of intent, and competing 

applications may be filed electronically 

via the Internet. See 18 CFR 

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions 

on the Commission’s Web site under the 

‘‘e-Filing’’ link. If unable to be filed 

electronically, documents may be paperfiled. To paper-file, an original and eight 

copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. 

Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 

more information on how to submit 

these types of filings please go to the 

Commission’s Web site located at 

http://www.ferc.gov/filingcomments.asp. More information about 

this project can be viewed or printed on 

the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link of Commission’s 

Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number 

(P–13342) in the docket number field to 

access the document. For assistance, 

call toll-free 1–866–208–3372. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–8557 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP09–111–000] 

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; 

Notice of Application 

April 8, 2009. 

Take notice that on April 7, 2009, 

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas 

Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court, 

Houston, Texas 77056, filed in the 

above referenced docket an application 

pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural 

Gas Act (NGA) and part 157 of the 

Commission’s regulations, for an order 

granting the authorization to abandon in 

place approximately 25.43 miles of Line 

3, consisting of 19.80 miles of 26-inch 

pipeline and 5.63 miles of 20-inch 

pipeline, beginning at the Summerfield 

Compressor Station at milepost (MP) 

31.52 in Noble County, Ohio, and 

ending at MP 56.95, approximately 160- 

feet upstream of the Meter and 

Regulatory Station 70004/74040 in 

Monroe County, Ohio. In addition, 

Texas Eastern proposes to remove a 

launcher barrel and mainline valve at 

MP 51.31 located at a fenced valve site 

along the 25.43-mile segment of Line 3, 

all as more fully set forth in the 

application which is on file with the 

Commission and open to public 

inspection. The filing is available for 

review at the Commission in the Public 

Reference Room or may be viewed on 

the Commission’s Web site 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, contact FERC 

at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TTY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Any questions concerning this 

application may be directed to Garth 

Johnson, General Manager, Rates and 

Certificates, Texas Eastern 

Transmission, LP, PO Box 1642, 

Houston, Texas 77251–1642, at (713) 

627–5415. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, on or before the comment date 

stated below file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

a motion to intervene in accordance 

with the requirements of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) 

and the Regulations under the NGA (18 

CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party 

status will be placed on the service list 

maintained by the Secretary of the 

Commission and will receive copies of 

all documents filed by the applicant and 

by all other parties. A party must submit 

14 copies of filings made in the 

proceeding with the Commission and 

must mail a copy to the applicant and 

to every other party. Only parties to the 

proceeding can ask for court review of 

Commission orders in the proceeding. 

However, a person does not have to 

intervene in order to have comments 

considered. The second way to 

participate is by filing with the 

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as 

possible, an original and two copies of 

comments in support of or in opposition 

to this project. The Commission will 

consider these comments in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but the filing of a comment alone 

will not serve to make the filer a party 

to the proceeding. The Commission’s 

rules require that persons filing 

comments in opposition to the project 

provide copies of their protests only to 

the party or parties directly involved in 

the protest. 

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 commentors will be 

placed on the Commission’s 

environmental mailing list, will receive 

copies of the environmental documents, 

and will be notified of meetings 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS