[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6325]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2205-039]


Central Vermont Public Service Commission; Notice Dismissing 
Filing as Deficient

March 30, 2007.
    On February 13, 2007, Commission staff issued an order modifying 
and approving a recreation plan under article 415 of the project 
license for the Lamoille Hydroelectric Project, located on the Lamoille 
River in Chittenden, Franklin, and Lamoille Counties, Vermont.\1\ On 
March 14, 2007, Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (Central 
Vermont or the licensee) filed a timely request for rehearing, seeking 
to modify the February order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 118 FERC ] 62,125 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the licensee requests rehearing of a provision in the 
February order regarding an access area for canoes and car-top boats at 
the south end of Arrowhead Mountain Reservoir. The February order 
modified the licensee's recreation plan. Ordering paragraph (C) of the 
February order provided that:

    The licensee shall acquire title in fee or the right to use in 
perpetuity all lands necessary to improve the access area at the 
south end of Arrowhead Mountain Reservoir to provide carry-in access 
for canoes and car-top boats. The licensee shall file documentation 
of the land acquisition with the Commission and include the access 
area at the south end of Arrowhead Mountain Reservoir in the as-
built drawings.

The licensee requests that the paragraph (C) requirement be deleted and 
suggests that, instead, the licensee will conduct a study of 
alternative access sites.
    The licensee's rehearing request is deficient because it fails to 
include a Statement of Issues section separate from its arguments, as 
required by Rule 713 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure.\2\ Rule 713(c)(2) requires that a rehearing request must 
include a separate section entitled ``Statement of Issues'' listing 
each issue presented to the Commission in a separately enumerated 
paragraph that includes representative Commission and court precedent 
on which the participant is relying.\3\ Under Rule 713, any issue not 
so listed will be deemed waived. Accordingly, Central Vermont's 
rehearing request is dismissed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 C.F.R. Sec.  385.713(c)(2) (2006). See Revision of Rules 
of Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue Identification, Order No. 
663, 70 FR 55723 (September 23, 2005), FERC Statutes and Regulations 
] 31,193 (2005). See also, Order 663-A, effective March 23, 2006, 
which amended Order 663 to limit its applicability to rehearing 
requests. Revision of Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding 
Issue Identification, Order No. 663-A, 71 FR 14640 (March 23, 2006), 
FERC Statutes and Regulations ] 31,211 (2006).
    \3\ As explained in Order No. 663, the purpose of this 
requirement is to benefit all participants in a proceeding by 
ensuring that the filer, the Commission, and all other participants 
understand the issues raised by the filer, and to enable the 
Commission to respond to these issues. Having a clearly articulated 
Statement of Issues ensures that issues are properly raised before 
the Commission and avoids the waste of time and resources involved 
in litigating appeals regarding which the courts of appeals lack 
jurisdiction because the issues on appeal were not clearly 
identified before the Commission. See Order No. 663 at P 3-4.
    \4\ See, e.g., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, 116 FERC ] 
61,218 (2006); and Duke Power Company, LLC, 116 FERC ] 61,171 
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that, even if the pleading had included the required 
statement of facts, we would nevertheless deny rehearing. Central 
Vermont concedes that ``the provision of public access for canoes and 
car-top boats at the south end of [Arrowhead Mountain Reservoir] is 
desired,'' and that ``no detailed analysis of alternative south end 
access for canoes and car-top boats has been performed.'' It shows no 
deficiency in the February order, but merely speculates that some other 
form of access might be preferable. Accordingly, we find the request 
for rehearing to be without merit.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that the licensee may file a request for an 
amendment to the license that would allow for the consideration of 
an alternative site for an access area, but note that such a 
proposal would require consultation with relevant resource agencies 
as well as public notice with the opportunity for comment.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6325 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P