Final Policy Statement (Published)

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 2024 / Notices
Docket Numbers: RP24–556–000.
Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline
Company of America LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing:
Negotiated Rate Agreements Filings—
Various Shippers on 03/22/2024 to be
effective 4/1/2024.
Filed Date: 3/22/24.
Accession Number: 20240322–5000.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/24.
Docket Numbers: RP24–557–000.
Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline
Company of America LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing:
Negotiated Rate Agreements Filings—
Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC to be
effective 4/1/2024.
Filed Date: 3/22/24.
Accession Number: 20240322–5001.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/24.
Docket Numbers: RP24–558–000.
Applicants: Cheniere Corpus Christi
Pipeline, L.P.
Description: Annual Operations
Transactions Report of Cheniere Corpus
Christi Pipeline, L.P.
Filed Date: 3/22/24.
Accession Number: 20240322–5043.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/24.
Docket Numbers: RP24–559–000.
Applicants: Cheniere Creole Trail
Pipeline, L.P.
Description: Annual Operations
Transactions Report of Cheniere Creole
Trail Pipeline, L.P.
Filed Date: 3/22/24.
Accession Number: 20240322–5044.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/24.
Docket Numbers: RP24–560–000.
Applicants: Midship Pipeline
Company, LLC.
Description: Annual Operational
Transactions Report of Midship Pipeline
Company, LLC.
Filed Date: 3/22/24.
Accession Number: 20240322–5045.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/24.
Docket Numbers: RP24–561–000.
Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing:
Negotiated Rate Service Agreement—
Puget to be effective 4/1/2024.
Filed Date: 3/22/24.
Accession Number: 20240322–5088.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/3/24.
Any person desiring to intervene, to
protest, or to answer a complaint in any
of the above proceedings must file in
accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206
of the Commission’s Regulations (18
CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system (https://

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:27 Mar 27, 2024

Jkt 262001

elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/
fercgensearch.asp) by querying the
docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For
other information, call (866) 208–3676
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.
The Commission’s Office of Public
Participation (OPP) supports meaningful
public engagement and participation in
Commission proceedings. OPP can help
members of the public, including
landowners, environmental justice
communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available
information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and
assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for
rehearing, the public is encouraged to
contact OPP at (202) 502–6595 or OPP@
ferc.gov.
Dated: March 22, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024–06638 Filed 3–27–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. PL24–1–000]

Project-Area Wage Standards in the
Labor Cost Component of Cost-ofService Rates
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Policy statement.
AGENCY:

The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission)
clarifies how the Commission will treat
the use of project-area wage standards in
calculating the labor cost component of
jurisdictional cost-of-service rates.
DATES: This policy statement is effective
June 26, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heidi Nielsen (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, (202)
502–8435, heidi.nielsen@ferc.gov
Adam Pollock (Technical Information),
Office of Energy Market Regulation,
(202) 502–8458, adam.pollock@
ferc.gov
James Sarikas (Technical Information),
Office of Energy Market Regulation,
(202) 502–6831, james.sarikas@
ferc.gov
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21503

1. On
October 19, 2023, the Commission
issued a proposed policy statement,1
proposing to clarify how it will treat the
use of project-area wage standards in
calculating the labor cost component of
cost-of-service rates, including under
Natural Gas Act (NGA) sections 4, 5,
and 7, 15 U.S.C. 717c–d, 717f; the
Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49
U.S.C. app. 1(5)(a); and Federal Power
Act (FPA) sections 205 and 206, 16
U.S.C. 824d–e.2 In this Policy
Statement, we adopt the proposals in
the Proposed Policy Statement, as
discussed below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
A. Current Commission Precedent
2. Project-area wage standards are the
prevailing wages set by labor markets in
the locale where the associated project
work (e.g., construction, capital repairs,
decommissioning) is performed. Those
prevailing wages can be found in data
sources that indicate the basic hourly
wage rates and fringe benefit rates for
labor, direct employees, and/or contract
personnel that prevail in a particular
geographic area. For example, under the
Davis-Bacon Act, the U.S. Department of
Labor issues prevailing wage
determinations based on periodic
surveys of union and non-union wages
paid in a particular location. These
determinations serve as the minimum
wage that must be paid by contractors
and subcontractors performing under
certain federally funded or assisted
construction contracts.3 A number of
states have enacted their own prevailing
wage laws, sometimes referred to as
‘‘Little Davis-Bacon’’ laws.4
3. The Commission addressed the
treatment of project-area wages in
natural gas pipeline cost-of-service rates
in Opinion Nos. 510 and 524.5 In
1 Project-Area Wage Standards in the Labor Cost
Component of Cost-of-Service Rates, 185 FERC
¶ 61,049 (2023) (Proposed Policy Statement).
2 While most interstate oil pipelines have marketbased or indexed rates, some jurisdictional
pipelines have cost-of-service rates on file with the
Commission.
3 ‘‘By requiring the payment of minimum
prevailing wages, Congress sought to ‘ensure that
Government construction and federally assisted
construction would not be conducted at the
expense of depressing local wage standards.’’’ Dep’t
of Labor, Updating the Davis-Bacon & Related Acts
Reguls., 88 FR 57526, 57526 (Aug. 23, 2023) (citing
Determination of Wage Rates Under the DavisBacon & Serv. Cont. Acts 5 Op. O.LC. 174, 176
(1981)) (Final Rule).
4 Dep’t of Labor, Dollar Threshold Amount for
Contract Coverage under State Prevailing Wage
Laws (Jan. 1, 2023), https://www.dol.gov/agencies/
whd/state/prevailing-wages.
5 Portland Nat. Gas Transmission Sys., Opinion
No. 510, 134 FERC ¶ 61,129 (2011), reh’g granted
in part, 142 FERC ¶ 61,198 (2013), reh’g dismissed,

E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM

Continued

28MRN1

21504

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 2024 / Notices

Opinion No. 510, the Commission
rejected a pipeline operator’s proposal
to use union-only wage rates from a
single proxy location to estimate the
labor cost of decommissioning its
pipeline that spanned four states,6
finding that the pipeline operator had
not carried its burden under NGA
section 4 to show that it would use
union labor and that, based on the
evidence in that proceeding, it was
accordingly reasonable to estimate labor
costs using a ‘‘blended’’ mix of average
union and non-union wage rates in the
general private construction industry in
the states where the pipeline was
located, ‘‘weighted’’ by the length of
pipe in each state.7 The Commission
subsequently applied the same
approach in Opinion No. 524, finding
that the same operator had again failed
to present sufficient supporting
evidence for its proposal to use uniononly wage rates in its estimate of
decommissioning labor costs.8

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

B. Proposed Policy Statement
4. In the Proposed Policy Statement,
the Commission proposed to clarify that
Opinion Nos. 510 and 524 were based
on the record evidence before the
Commission in those proceedings and
do not reflect a heightened standard of
review with respect to project-area wage
rates.9 The Commission proposed that
jurisdictional entities should be able to
include wages consistent with projectarea wage standards in cost-of-service
rates filed with the Commission where
the record supports that outcome.
5. Specifically, the Commission
proposed that, when a Commissionjurisdictional entity presents evidence
that it: (1) pays project-area wage
standards; (2) is contractually obligated
to pay project-area wage standards; or
(3) commits via affidavit filed in the rate
proceeding that it will pay project-area
wage standards, the Commission will
presume, absent contrary evidence, that
such project-area wage standards are
just and reasonable for the relevant
labor-cost component.10 Furthermore,
the Commission proposed that it will
150 FERC ¶ 61,106 (2015); Portland Nat. Gas
Transmission Sys., Opinion No. 524, 142 FERC
¶ 61,197 (2013), reh’g denied, 150 FERC ¶ 61,107
(2015). Among other things, these proceedings
involved estimating the expected costs for future
pipeline retirements, specifically, determining the
labor component for decommissioning costs to be
recovered by a pipeline operator, Portland Natural
Gas Transmission System.
6 Opinion No. 510, 134 FERC ¶ 61,129 at P 124.
7 Id.
8 Opinion No. 524, 142 FERC ¶ 61,197 at PP 162–
64.
9 Proposed Policy Statement, 185 FERC ¶ 61,049
at P 4.
10 Id. P 5.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:27 Mar 27, 2024

Jkt 262001

reject the inclusion of labor wages
consistent with project-area wage
standards in cost-of-service rates when
the evidence demonstrates that the
jurisdictional entity has not paid or will
not be paying labor wages consistent
with project-area wage standards.
6. The Commission proposed to
accept as evidence of project-area wage
standards: (1) Davis-Bacon Act local
prevailing wage determinations; (2) state
prevailing wage determinations; (3)
applicable collective-bargaining
agreements or Project Labor
Agreements; or (4) other evidence
demonstrating the prevailing wages paid
in the relevant locale(s), such as an
industry-accepted database used in
construction cost estimates.11 The
Commission sought comment on the
appropriateness of the four proposed
sources of project-area wage standards.
In particular, the Commission sought
comment on the appropriateness of
using industry databases with
construction cost estimates as a source
of project-area wage standards as well as
whether any project-area wage
standards might not be captured in the
first three listed categories.
7. The Commission further proposed
that jurisdictional entities seeking to
include project-area wage standards in
cost-of-service rates should maintain
and preserve records, including books of
account or records for work performed
by employees, contractors or
subcontractors, sufficient to
demonstrate that claimed project-area
wages were actually paid.12
II. Comments
8. Comments were filed by:
CenterPoint Energy Minnesota
Resources Corp dba CenterPoint Energy
Minnesota Gas (CenterPoint); Charps,
LLC; Enbridge (U.S.) Inc. (Enbridge);
Illinois Commerce Commissioners Doug
P. Scott, Michael T. Carrigan, and
Conrad R. Reddick (Illinois Commerce
Commissioners); International Union of
Operating Engineers; Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America (INGAA);
Laborers’ International Union of North
America (LIUNA); Pe Ben USA, Inc.;
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
(Minnesota Commission); Pennsylvania
Public Utility Commissioner Kathryn
Zerfuss (Pennsylvania Commissioner
Zerfuss); Pipe Line Contractors
Association; Pipeliners Union 798
United Association; Price Gregory
International; R.L. Coolsaet
Construction Company; Southern Star
Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern
11 Id.
12 Id.

PO 00000

P 6.
P 7.

Frm 00022

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Star); and Teamsters National Pipeline
Labor Management Cooperation Trust.
9. Commenters broadly support the
issuance of a policy statement that
clarifies how the Commission will treat
the use of project-area wage standards in
calculating the labor cost component of
jurisdictional cost-of-service rates.13
Commenters disagree, however, on
whether jurisdictional entities should be
able to use sources other than collective
bargaining agreements for the projectarea wage standard.
10. Labor unions (including
International Union of Operating
Engineers, LIUNA, Pipeline Local Union
798, Pipe Line Contractors Association,
and Teamsters National Pipeline Labor
Management Cooperation Trust);
Charps, LLC; PE Ben USA, Inc.; Price
Gregory International; and R.L. Coolsaet
Construction Company argue that
collective bargaining rates should be the
only metric for project-area wages when
an operator certifies the employment of
union labor.14 LIUNA and Pipe Line
Contractors Association explain that
collectively bargained rates not only
reflect actual wage and fringe benefit
rates paid to the project workforce,
including per diem rates but also are
legally binding and can be verified by
the Commission.15 CenterPoint states
that collectively bargained rates via the
union or project agreement accurately
reflect the actual labor cost, especially
for unexpected infrastructure work
where time is critical, and ensures that
work is done quickly while maintaining
high quality and safety.16
11. International Union of Operating
Engineers argues that the Commission
should only use Davis-Bacon and state
prevailing wages if they have been
updated recently and reflect actual
wages received (e.g., collectively
bargained rates), not a metric unused by
any other public agency or construction
estimator.17
12. International Union of Operating
Engineers cautions against the use of a
13 Illinois Commerce Commissioners, Minnesota
Commission, and Pennsylvania Commissioner
Zerfuss support the use of prevailing wages.
14 Charps, LLC Comments at 1; International
Union of Operating Engineers Comments at 2;
LIUNA Comments at 2–4; PE Ben USA, Inc.
Comments at 1; Pipeline Local Union 798
Comments at 1; Pipe Line Contractors Association
Comments at 2; Price Gregory International
Comments at 1; R.L. Coolsaet Construction
Company Comments at 1; Teamsters National
Pipeline Labor Management Cooperation Trust
Comments at 2.
15 LIUNA Comments at 2; Pipe Line Contractors
Association Comments at 2. See also PE Ben USA,
Inc. Comments at 1; Price Gregory International
Comments at 1; R.L. Coolsaet Construction
Company Comments at 1.
16 CenterPoint Comments at 2.
17 International Union of Operating Engineers
Comments at 2.

E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM

28MRN1

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 2024 / Notices
‘‘blended wage rate’’ (i.e., the average of
union and non-union wages in the
general private construction industry
within the states where the pipeline is
located) to reimburse pipeline operator
costs for several reasons: (1) it distorts
the actual wages paid to workers; (2) it
relies upon the Bureau of Labor and
Statistics’ Occupational Employment
Statistics that do not segment the
industry into industry groups (e.g.,
heavy, highway, building, residential);
(3) it includes the residential
construction industry, which requires
different skill sets than industrial work;
(4) it fails to incorporate fringe benefits;
and (5) it disincentivizes the use of
union contractors because they are not
able to recover labor costs and gives a
false impression that union labor is
more expensive.18
13. Pipe Line Contractors Association
state that, in the absence of a union
commitment, it may be appropriate for
the Commission to consider other
sources after verifying that the source’s
labor rates reasonably reflect actual
wages and fringe benefit rates that
would need to be paid to recruit and
retain a qualified workforce.19 However,
Pipe Line Contractors Association
opposes the inclusion of ‘‘other
industry-accepted wage sources’’ and
asks the Commission to rely solely on
the other three sources. It urges the
Commission to limit the use of costing
databases because such databases are
usually based on national averages or
averages for the entire construction
industry and exclude vital
compensation components such as
fringe benefit and per diem rates (e.g.,
crew costs in RSMeans, a construction
costing application, only include the
hourly wage rate and contractor
overhead costs, not compensation
sources). It also urges the Commission
not to use costing databases with wage
rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
because: (1) its occupational wage rates
are based on a rolling three-year cycle
that constitute historical wages and lag
behind current market trends; (2) its
wage data does not capture sectoral
differences, which is important because
pipeline construction requires higher
skills and operator qualification; and (3)
it excludes fringe benefit contribution
rates, per diem rates, and training
investments, which are critical
compensation inputs for the pipeline
industry.
14. CenterPoint contends that the
database would be useful if it is specific
to the local affected community, stating
18 Id.

at 1–2.
Line Contractors Association Comments at

19 Pipe

2.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:27 Mar 27, 2024

Jkt 262001

that national databases are less useful,
especially in the current labor market
with labor rates varying widely across
the country.20 Enbridge and Southern
Star argue that, as long as the source for
compensation levels reflects actual
market conditions necessary to attract a
highly skilled workforce, and the
operator can certify that those rates were
paid or will be paid, the Commission
should defer these labor decisions to the
operator and find these costs to be just
and reasonable.21 Southern Star states
that there are several legitimate business
reasons for employing a workforce with
a higher labor rate.22 Southern Star
notes, for example, that a pipeline often
requires a specialized workforce with
advanced skills, experience, and
training which may offer alternative cost
savings other than the baseline labor
rate, or other advantages such as in the
area of safety.
15. INGAA states that it is appropriate
to accept and evaluate submitted
evidence from industry databases and
other evidence to demonstrate
prevailing wages paid in the relevant
locale(s), adding that the Commission
strikes an appropriate balance between
offering definitive guidance on how to
demonstrate wage standards and
retaining the flexibility that has been the
hallmark of rate cases before the
Commission.23
III. Commission Determination
16. As explained in the Proposed
Policy Statement, Opinion Nos. 510 and
524 were based on the record evidence
before the Commission in those
proceedings and do not reflect a
heightened standard of review with
respect to project-area wage rates.24 We
adopt the proposals in the Proposed
Policy Statement to allow jurisdictional
entities to include wages consistent
with project-area wage standards in
cost-of-service rates filed with the
Commission where the record supports
that outcome. Specifically, when a
Commission-jurisdictional entity
presents evidence that it: (1) pays
project-area wage standards; (2) is
contractually obligated to pay projectarea wage standards; or (3) commits via
affidavit 25 filed in the rate proceeding
20 CenterPoint

Comments at 2.
Comments at 3–4; Southern Star
Comments at 4.
22 Southern Star Comments at 3.
23 INGAA Comments at 2.
24 Proposed Policy Statement, 185 FERC ¶ 61,049
at P 4.
25 We remind filers that all information submitted
in cost-of-service filings must be truthful and
accurate, see 18 CFR 35.13(d)(6) (‘‘A utility shall
include in its filing an attestation . . . that . . . the
cost of service statements and supporting data
submitted . . . are true, accurate, and current
21 Enbridge

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

21505

that it will pay project-area wage
standards, the Commission will
presume, absent contrary evidence, that
such project-area wage standards are
just and reasonable for the relevant
labor-cost component.26 Furthermore,
the Commission will reject the inclusion
of labor wages consistent with projectarea wage standards in cost-of-service
rates when the evidence demonstrates
that the jurisdictional entity has not
paid or will not be paying labor wages
consistent with project-area wage
standards.
17. We adopt the Proposed Policy
Statement’s proposal regarding the
sources of project-area wage standards,
as clarified below. Pursuant to the
framework discussed below, we find
that appropriate sources of project-area
wage standards may include: (1)
applicable collective-bargaining
agreements or Project Labor
Agreements; 27 (2) Davis-Bacon Act local
prevailing wage determinations; 28 (3)
state prevailing wage determinations; 29
or (4) other evidence demonstrating the
prevailing wages paid in the relevant
locale(s), such as an industry-accepted
database used in construction cost
estimates.30
representations of the utility’s books, budgets, or
other corporate documents.’’), 154.308 (‘‘The filing
must include a statement . . . representing that the
cost statements, supporting data, and workpapers,
that purport to reflect the books of the company do,
in fact, set forth the results shown by such books.’’),
341.1(b)(1) (‘‘The signature on a filing constitutes a
certification that the contents are true to the best
knowledge and belief of the signer . . . .’’), and
that failure to meet this requirement may result in
a referral to the Office of Enforcement for further
investigation and action, as appropriate.
26 Consistent with 48 CFR 22.401, this policy
statement applies to employee or contract labor
whose duties are primarily manual or physical in
nature, as distinguished from mental or managerial,
and did not apply to employees or contractors
whose duties are primarily executive, supervisory,
administrative, or clerical. For purposes of this
policy statement, ‘‘wages’’ mean the basic hourly
pay rate including fringe benefits, as more fully
defined in 48 CFR 22.401.
27 Project Labor Agreements are agreements
between building trade unions and contractors.
They govern terms and conditions of employment
(including wage-related issues) on a construction
project for all craft workers—union and nonunion.
Dep’t of Labor, Project Labor Agreement Res. Guide,
Project Labor, Cmty. Workforce, & Cmty. Benefits
Agreements Res. Guide, ¶ 1, https://www.dol.gov/
general/good-jobs/project-labor-agreementresource-guide.
28 Pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended
and codified at 40 U.S.C. 3141(2), the term
‘‘prevailing wages’’ includes the basic hourly rate
of pay and fringe benefits, as determined by the
Department of Labor. See Final Rule, 88 FR at
57526 (citing 40 U.S.C. 3142, 3145), 57531, 57546,
57699, 57722–724.
29 The applicable state prevailing wage
determination should meet or exceed the DavisBacon Act local prevailing wage determinations.
30 Proposed Policy Statement, 185 FERC ¶ 61,049
at P 6.

E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM

28MRN1

21506

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 2024 / Notices

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

18. In considering these sources of
project-area wage standards, we clarify
that the Commission will look to
applicable collective-bargaining
agreements or Project Labor Agreements
as an appropriate default source of
project-area wage standards. We find
that it is appropriate to identify these
agreements as the default source of
project-area wage standards because
collectively bargained wages reflect
actual wage and fringe benefit rates paid
to the project workforce, including per
diem rates. Moreover, such wages are
legally binding and can be verified by
the Commission. By comparison, labor
costs based upon Davis-Bacon Act data
are estimates of future costs based on
average local wages, which may differ
from the actual wages paid by a
jurisdictional entity.
19. We find, however, that there could
be circumstances when a jurisdictional
entity uses collectively bargained wages
for only part of its workforce or that
collective bargained wage data is
otherwise not representative of the
jurisdictional entity’s future labor costs.
For example, as Southern Star points
out, jurisdictional entities may need to
hire higher-wage specialized workers,
which could justify the use of sources
other than collective-bargaining
agreements or Project Labor
Agreements. For these reasons, a
jurisdictional entity may use the other
three data sources enumerated in the
Proposed Policy Statement 31 if the
jurisdictional entity provides a detailed
explanation of why these sources: (1)
better reflect actual wages than relying
on collective-bargaining agreements or
Project Labor Agreements; and (2)
accurately reflect wage information
during the project period, including
demonstrating that it is based on up-todate data.
20. Finally, we adopt the Proposed
Policy Statement proposal that
jurisdictional entities seeking to include
project-area wage standards in cost-ofservice rates should maintain and
preserve records, including books of
account or records for work performed
by employees, contractors or
subcontractors, sufficient to
demonstrate that claimed project-area
wages were actually paid.32
IV. Information Collection Statement
21. The Paperwork Reduction Act and
the implementing regulations of the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) require approval of certain
information collection requirements
31 See

supra P 6.
Policy Statement, 185 FERC ¶ 61,049

32 Proposed

at P 7.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:27 Mar 27, 2024

Jkt 262001

imposed by an agency. Upon approval
of a collection of information, OMB will
assign an OMB Control Number and an
expiration date. Respondents subject to
the filing requirements will not be
penalized for failing to respond to the
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
valid OMB control number.
22. This Policy Statement clarifies
how the Commission will treat the use
of project-area wage standards in
calculating the labor cost component of
jurisdictional cost-of-service rates filed
by a natural-gas company, interstate oil
pipeline, or public utility, pursuant to
NGA sections 4, 5 and 7, 15 U.S.C.
717c–d, 717f; ICA, 49 U.S.C. app.
1(5)(a); and FPA sections 205 and 206,
16 U.S.C. 824d-e, respectively.
23. The Commission is submitting
these reporting requirements to OMB for
its review and approval under section
3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act. Comments are solicited on whether
the information will have practical
utility, the accuracy of provided burden
estimates, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected, and any suggested methods
for minimizing the respondent’s burden,
including the use of automated
information techniques.
24. Send written comments on the
revisions to the information collections
in Docket No. PL24–1–000 to OMB
through www.reinfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Please identify the OMB Control
Number (identified in paragraph 25
below) in the subject line of your
comments. Comments should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
docket to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain. Additionally, please submit
copies of your comments (identified by
Docket No. PL24–1–000) by either of the
following methods: (1) eFiling at
Commission’s website: http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp or
(2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, at Health
and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. All
submissions must be formatted and filed
in accordance with submission
guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/
submission-guide.asp. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online
Support by email at ferconlinesupport@
ferc.gov, or by phone at: (866) 208–3676
(toll-free).
25. Collection Nos., Titles and OMB
Control Nos.: FERC–516J (Labor Wage
Policy Statement, OMB Control No.
1902–TBD); FERC–537 (Gas Pipeline
Certificates: Construction, Acquisition

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

and Abandonment; OMB Control No.
1902–0060); FERC–538 (Gas Pipeline
Certificates: Section 7(a) Mandatory
Initial Service, OMB Control No. 1902–
0061); FERC–545 (Gas Pipeline Rates:
Rate Change (Non-formal), OMB Control
No. 1902–0154); FERC–546 (Certificated
Rate Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates, OMB
Control No. 1902–0155); FERC–550 (Oil
Pipeline Rates—Tariff Filings and
Depreciation Studies, OMB Control No.
1902–0089); FERC–555 (Preservation of
Records for Public Utilities and
Licensees, Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline
Companies, OMB Control No. 1902–
0098).
26. Action: Revisions to the
collections of information in accordance
with the Policy Statement.
27. Respondents: The estimate of the
number of respondents that may elect to
use project-area wage standards in
calculating the labor cost component of
cost-of-service rates is based upon the
existing burden inventory currently
approved by OMB for filing rates cases,
depreciation studies and certificate
filings, include initial rates or seeking
approval to charge existing rates for
natural gas companies, public utilities
and oil pipelines. This burden estimate
is based upon one-third of the filings
electing to include an additional burden
by the filer to incorporate labor costs
based upon paying wages that at
minimum meet project-area wage
standards.
28. Frequency of Information
Collection: Jurisdictional entities, when
including elements in rates reflecting
future capital costs, may elect to make
the above showings in support of wages
that are at or above project-area wage
standards. Such proceedings may
include but are not limited to
certificates for new natural gas
pipelines, general natural gas pipeline
and electric utility rate cases, proposed
new or modified depreciation rates, and
proposed inclusion of asset retirement
obligation in rates. In total,
jurisdictional entities may make such a
showing one time per year.
29. Necessity of Information: The
information would be necessary for the
jurisdictional entity to receive the
presumption that wages for capital
projects that are at or above project-area
wage standards are not just and
reasonable.
30. Internal Review: The Commission
has reviewed the changes and has
determined that such changes are
necessary. These requirements conform
to the Commission’s need for efficient
information collection, communication,
and management within the energy
industry in support of the Commission’s
ensuring just and reasonable rates. The

E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM

28MRN1

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 2024 / Notices
Commission has specific, objective
support for the burden estimates
associated with the information
collection requirements. However, we

request comments with supporting
background information on the
estimates for burden and cost.

21507

31. The Commission estimates the
effect of the Policy Statement on
burden 33 and cost 34 as follows:
32.

ESTIMATES OF THE EFFECTS DUE TO THE POLICY STATEMENT IN DOCKET NO. PL24–1–000
A.
Information collection

B.
Number
of
respondents

C.
Annual number
of responses per
respondent

D.
Total
number of
responses

E.
Average burden
hours and cost
per response

F.
Total annual hour
burdens & total
annual cost

G.
Cost
per
respondent

(column D ×
column E)

(column F ÷
column B)

(column B ×
column C)
FERC–516J 35 ......................................................

6

1

6

15 hrs. $1,500

90 hrs. $9,000 ............

$1,500

Other Affected Collections 36
FERC–537
FERC–538
FERC–546
FERC–550
FERC–545
FERC–555

............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................

22
1
16
7
11
170

1
1
1
1
1
1

22
1
16
7
11
170

15 hrs. $1,500
15 hrs. $1,500
15 hrs. $1,500
15 hrs. $1,440
15 hrs. $1,500
1 hr. $500 ........

330 hrs. $33,000 ........
15 hrs. $1,500 ............
240 hrs. $24,000 ........
105 hrs. $10,500 ........
165 hrs. $16,500 ........
170 hrs. $17,000 ........

1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
100

Total Effect of the Policy Statement .............

........................

..............................

233

.........................

1,115 hrs. $111,500 ...

........................

V. Document Availability
33. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (http://
www.ferc.gov).
34. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
35. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the Commission’s website
during normal business hours from
FERC Online Support at (202) 502–6652
(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
VI. Effective Date
36. This Policy Statement will become
effective on June 26, 2024.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1

By the Commission.
33 ‘‘Burden’’ is the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information
to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation
of what is included in the estimated burden, refer
to 5 CFR 1320.3.
34 Commission staff estimates that the
respondents’ skill set (and wages and benefits) for
this docket are comparable to those of Commission

VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:27 Mar 27, 2024

Jkt 262001

Issued: March 21, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.

This is a supplemental notice in the
above-referenced proceeding of Maple
Flats Solar Energy Center LLC’s
application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate
tariff, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket
authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to
protest should file with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and

385.214). Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy
of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the
deadline for filing protests with regard
to the applicant’s request for blanket
authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of
future issuances of securities and
assumptions of liability, is April 11,
2024.
The Commission encourages
electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the
FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic
service, persons with internet access
who will eFile a document and/or be
listed as a contact for an intervenor
must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
Persons unable to file electronically
may mail similar pleadings to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human
Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text
of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to

employees. Based on the Commission’s Fiscal Year
2023 average cost of $207,786/year (for wages plus
benefits, for one full-time employee), $100.00/hour
is used.
35 The FERC–516J is a new temporary collection
number that includes the burden changes due to
this Policy Statement. This temporary number will
be used for the burden related to the FERC–516
(OMB# 1902–0096) information collection (IC).

Note: In the Proposed Policy Statement, the
Commission referenced the FERC–1006 temporary
collection, which will no longer be used because
most of the information collection requests have
been approved by OMB since the publication of the
Proposed Policy Statement.
36 Since the issuance of the Proposed Policy
Statement, OMB has approved data collections
FERC–545, –555, –537.

[FR Doc. 2024–06557 Filed 3–27–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. ER24–1576–000]

Maple Flats Solar Energy Center LLC;
Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes
Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM

28MRN1