In accordance with the provisions set forth in the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (EFAA), 7 U.S.C. 7502, and the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2011, et seq. , the Department makes commodities and administrative funds available to States for use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need through TEFAP. In accordance with 7 CFR 251.3(h), each State's share of TEFAP commodities and administrative funds is based 60 percent on the number of low-income households within the State and 40 percent on the number of unemployed persons within the State. State officials are responsible for establishing the network through which the commodities will be used by eligible recipient agencies (ERAs) in providing nutrition assistance to those in need, and for allocating commodities and administrative funds among those agencies. States have full discretion in determining the amount of commodities that will be made available to ERAs for use in preparing meals, and/or for distribution to households for home consumption.

The types of commodities the Department expects to make available to States for distribution through TEFAP in FY 2007 are described below.

Surplus commodities donated for distribution under TEFAP are Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) commodities purchased under the authority of section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, 7 U.S.C. 1431 (section 416) and commodities purchased under the surplus removal authority of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, 7 U.S.C. 612c (section 32). The types of commodities typically purchased under section 416 include dairy, grains, oils, and peanut products. The types of commodities purchased under section 32 include meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, dry beans, juices, and fruits.

In FY 2007, the Department anticipates that there will be sufficient quantities of apple products, cherry products, grape juice, grapefruit juice, and fresh tomatoes under section 32, to support the distribution of these commodities through TEFAP. Other surplus commodities may be made available to TEFAP throughout the year. The Department would like to point out that commodity acquisitions are based on changing agricultural market conditions; therefore, the availability of commodities is subject to change.

Approximately $10 million in surplus commodities purchased in FY 2006 are being delivered to States in FY 2007. These commodities include frozen and canned asparagus, cranberry juice concentrate, cranberry sauce, fig pieces, and instant nonfat dry milk.

In accordance with section 27 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2036, the Secretary is directed annually, through FY 2007, to purchase $140 million worth of commodities for distribution through TEFAP. These commodities are made available to States in addition to those surplus commodities which otherwise might be provided to States for distribution under TEFAP. However, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, (Pub. L. 110-5) permits States to convert any or their entire fair share of $10 million of these funds to administrative funds to pay costs associated with the distribution of TEFAP commodities at the State and local level.

For FY 2007, the Department anticipates purchasing the following commodities for distribution through TEFAP: Egg mix, blackeye beans, great northern beans, kidney beans, lima beans, pinto beans, bakery mix, lowfat bakery mix, egg noodles, white and yellow corn grits, macaroni, oats, peanut butter, rice, spaghetti, vegetable oil, rice cereal, corn flakes, corn squares, oat cereal, bran flakes, frozen ground beef, frozen chicken, frozen ham, frozen turkey roast, and the following canned items: Mixed vegetables, green beans, refried beans, vegetarian beans, carrots, cream corn, whole kernel corn, peas, pumpkin, spinach, sliced potatoes, spaghetti sauce, tomatoes, tomato sauce, tomato soup, vegetable soup, sweet potatoes, diced tomatoes, apple juice, cranapple juice, grape juice, orange juice, pineapple juice, tomato juice, mixed fruits, apricots, peaches, pineapples, applesauce, pears, plums, beef, beef stew, chicken, pork, tuna, and roasted peanuts. The amounts of each item purchased will depend on the prices the Department must pay, as well as the quantity of each item requested by the States. Changes in agricultural market conditions may result in the availability of additional types of commodities or the non-availability of one or more types listed above.

In June 2007, the BLM and Forest Service (the Agencies) released a Final Supplement to the 2004 FSEIS to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. The Final Supplement presented the entire 2004 analysis, updated for new information and supplemented to include:

The analysis covered 337 species of fungi, bryophytes, lichens, mollusks, vascular plants, and vertebrates and 4 arthropod groups. The analysis showed, when compared to the No-Action Alternatives, 53 species would have insufficient habitat in all or a portion of their Northwest Forest Plan range to support stable populations. However, the analysis points out these species are generally either secure in other areas of their range, or State Heritage programs do not rate them imperiled enough to qualify for the two Agencies' Special Status Species Programs. The analysis also shows the selected alternative improves the Agencies' ability to achieve other Northwest Forest Plan objectives.

Readers should note this decision was signed by the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment. Therefore, no administrative review (“appeal”) through the Forest Service will be available on the Record of Decision under 36 CFR part 217.

Reference to previously published Federal Register documents: 71 FR 38601, July 7, 2006; 71 FR 38641, July 7, 2006; 72 FR 546, Jan. 5, 2007; 72 FR 31821, June 8, 2007; 72 FR 33737, June 19, 2007.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Additions

On May 25 and June 1 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 29296; 30541) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:

On June 1, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 30542) of proposed deletions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:

This conference is open to the public but space is limited to approximately 150 attendees.

Under the authority of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. 98, et seq. ), the Department of Defense (DOD), as National Defense Stockpile Manager, maintains a stockpile of strategic and critical materials to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States for national defense. Section 3314 of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (50 U.S.C. 98h-1) formally established a Market Impact Committee (the Committee) to “advise the National Defense Stockpile Manager on the projected domestic and foreign economic effects of all acquisitions and disposals of materials from the stockpile * * * .” The Committee must also balance market impact concerns with the statutory requirement to protect the Government against avoidable loss.

The Committee is comprised of representatives from the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, the Treasury, and Homeland Security, and is co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and State. The FY 1993 NDAA directs the Committee to consult with industry representatives that produce, process, or consume the materials contained in the stockpile.

The Committee is seeking public comments on the potential market impact of increasing the National Defense Stockpile's proposed Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Materials Plan disposal level for beryllium metal from 40 short tons to 80 short tons. The quantity listed for beryllium metal is not a disposal or sales target quantity, but rather a statement of the proposed maximum disposal quantity of the material that may be sold in a particular fiscal year by the DNSC. The quantity of the material that will actually be offered for sale will depend on the market for the material at the time of the offering as well as on the quantity of the material approved for disposal by Congress.

The Committee requests that interested parties provide written comments, supporting data and documentation, and any other relevant information on the potential market impact of the sale of this material. All comments must be submitted to the address indicated in this notice. All comments submitted through e-mail must include the phrase “Market Impact Committee Notice of Inquiry” in the subject line.

The Committee encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on August 27, 2007. The Committee will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured.

Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission and also provide a non-confidential submission that can be placed in the public record. The Committee will seek to protect such information to the extent permitted by law. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be made a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying.

The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia . This office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you have technical difficulties accessing this Web site, please call BIS's Office of Administration at (202) 482-1900 for assistance.

On February 2, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (stainless steel flanges) from India for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 72 FR 5007 (February 2, 2007). On February 20, 2007, Echjay Forgings Pvt., Ltd. (Echjay) requested an administrative review of its U.S. sales that were subject to the antidumping duty order for this period. On February 23, 2007, Hilton Metal Forging Ltd. (Hilton) requested an administrative review of its U.S. sales that were subject to the antidumping duty order for this period. The Department also received requests for an administrative review from Nakshatra Enterprises Pvt., Ltd., and Shree Ganesh Forgings, Ltd. On March 28, 2007, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India with respect to these companies. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 72 FR 14516, 14517 (March 28, 2007).

On April 11, 2007 Hilton withdrew its request for an administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced period. On April 19, 2007, Echjay withdrew its request for an administrative review of its sales during the above-referenced period. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party who requested the review withdraws the request within ninety days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Because Hilton and Echjay withdrew their requests for review within the 90-day period and no other party requested a review of their sales, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review with respect to Hilton and Echjay.

The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the publication of this notice. The Department will direct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the cash deposit rate in effect on the date of entry for entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Hilton or Echjay during the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007.

This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On April 12, 2007, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of glycine from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), covering the period March 1, 2005, through February 28, 2006. See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission, in Part , 72 FR 18457 (April 12, 2007). On April 27, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for submitting factual information for the Department to consider in selecting the surrogate values (“SVs”) for the final results of this review, from May 2, 2007, to June 1, 2007. The Department also extended the briefing schedule to accommodate the SV comment extension. On June 14, 2007, the Department issued a letter in response to interested parties' comments regarding certain SV information that had been placed on the record. Also on June 14, 2007, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to the respondent, Nantong Dongchang Chemical Industry Corp. (“NDCI”), seeking clarification regarding the ammonia input it uses in the glycine production process. In addition, the Department noted that the domestic interested party participating in this review, Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“Geo”), would have an opportunity to comment on and rebut any information submitted by NDCI in its response to the June 14, 2007, supplemental questionnaire. The Department again extended the briefing schedule, making case briefs due by July 16, 2007, and rebuttal briefs due by July 23, 2007. The final results of this review are currently due by August 10, 2007.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), if the Department determines that it is not practicable to complete the review within the designated time period, the Department may extend the time limit for issuing the final results in a review from 120 days to 180 days after publication of the preliminary results.

The Department determines that it would not be practicable to complete the final results of this administrative review within the current time period. Given the extended briefing schedule and the new SV information submitted by parties, the Department requires additional time to analyze the parties' information and arguments, which encompass several issues the Department considers to be extraordinarily complicated, including, but not limited to, the valuation of the ammonia input. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of this review by 60 days, until October 9, 2007.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i) of the Act.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (“The Act”) (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4011-21) Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to Issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The Regulations Implementing Title III (“the Regulations”) are found at 15 CFR part 325 (1999). Pursuant to this Authority, a Certificate of Review was issued on May 15, 1990 to Dimick International & Associates.

A Certificate Holder is required by law to submit to the Secretary of Commerce Annual Reports that update financial and other information relating to business activities covered by its Certificate (Section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018, Section 325.14(a) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(a)). The Annual Report is due within 45 days after the Anniversary Date of the Issuance of the Certificate of Review (Sections 325.14(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(b)). Failure to submit a complete Annual Report may be the Basis for Revocation (Sections 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a)(3) and 325.14(c)). On May 6, 2006, the Secretary of Commerce sent to Dimick International & Associates a letter containing Annual Report questions stating that its annual report was due on June 29, 2006. A reminder was sent on May 31, 2007, with a due date of June 29, 2007. The Secretary has received no written response from Dimick International & Associates to any of these letters. On July 6, 2007, and in accordance with Section 325.10(c)(1) of the Regulations, (15 CFR 325.10(c)(1)), the Secretary of Commerce sent a letter by Certified Mail to notify Dimick International & Associates that the Secretary was formally initiating the process to revoke its Certificate for failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has received no response from Dimick International & Associates. Pursuant to Section 325.10(c)(2) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.10(c)(2)), the Secretary considers the failure of Dimick International & Associates to respond to be an admission of the statements contained in the notification letter. The Secretary has determined to revoke the Certificate issued to Dimick International & Associates for its failure to file an annual report. The Secretary has sent a letter, dated July 20, 2007 to notify the Dimick International & Associates of its final determination.

The Revocation is effective thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice (325.10(c)(4) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(c)). Any person aggrieved by this decision may appeal to an appropriate U.S. District Court within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register “(325.11 of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.11).”

NMFS Alaska Region administers the Crab Rationalization Program in the North Pacific. Fishing under the Program began in August 15, 2005. Regulations implementing the Program are set forth at 50 CFR part 680.

The Program is a limited access system authorized by section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The Program contains a cost recovery provision to collect fees to recover the actual costs directly related to the management and enforcement of the Program. NMFS developed the cost recovery provision to conform with statutory requirements and to partially compensate the agency for the unique added costs of management and enforcement of the Program. Section 313(j) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provided supplementary authority to section 304(d)(2)(A) and additional detail for cost recovery provisions specific to the Program. The cost recovery provision allows collection of 133 percent of the actual management, data collecting, and enforcement costs up to three percent of the ex-vessel value of crab harvested under the Program. Additionally, section 313(j) requires the harvesting and processing sectors to each pay half the cost recovery fees. Catcher/processor quota share holders are required to pay the full fee percentage.

A crab allocation holder generally incurs a cost recovery fee liability for every pound of crab landed. The crab allocations include Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ), Crew IFQ, Individual Processing Quota, Community Development Quota, and the Adak community allocation. The Registered Crab Receiver (RCR) permit holder must collect the fee liability from the crab allocation holder who is landing crab. Additionally, the RCR permit holder must collect his or her own fee liability for all crab delivered to the RCR. The RCR permit holder is responsible for submitting this payment to NMFS on or before the due date of July 31, following the crab fishing year in which payment for the crab is made.

The dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the fee percentage (not to exceed three percent) by the ex-vessel value of crab debited from the allocation. Specific details on the Program's cost recovery provision may be found in the implementing regulations set forth at 50 CFR 680.44.

Each year, NMFS calculates and publishes in the Federal Register the fee percentage according to the factors and methodology described in Federal regulations at § 680.44(c)(2). The formula for determining the fee percentage is the 'direct program costs' divided by 'value of the fishery', where 'direct program costs' are the direct program costs for the Crab Rationalization Program for the previous fiscal year, and 'value of the fishery' is the ex-vessel value of the catch subject to the crab cost recovery fee liability for the current year. Using this fee percentage formula, the estimated percentage of costs to value for the 2006/2007 fishery was 4.38 percent. However, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, at § 304(d)(2)(B), prohibits NMFS from collecting fees greater that three percent of the ex-vessel value of the crab harvests under the Program. Therefore, the fee percentage will remain three percent for the 2007-2008 crab fishing year.

On May 15, 2007, a notice was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 27291) that an application had been filed by the above named individual. The requested permit has been denied subject to the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

An authorization shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as ”...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

On December 15, 2006, PRBO submitted an application to NMFS requesting an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) for the possible harassment of small numbers of California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), Pacific harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ), northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), and Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ) incidental to central

California seabird research operations on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS. A detailed description of the proposed activity is presented below:

The Southeast Farallon Island is located 28 miles (45 km) offshore of San Francisco, California (37° 41′55″N, 123° 00′10″W). Seabird research activities on the Southeast Farallon Island would involve observational and “hands on” ecological studies of breeding seabirds. Occasionally researchers may travel to coastal areas of the island to conduct observational seabird research where non breeding marine mammals are present. These sorts of tasks include viewing breeding seabirds from an observation blind or censusing shorebirds. This activity usually involves one or two observers. Access to the refuge involves landing in small, 14-18 ft (4.3 - 5.5 m) open motorboats which are hoisted onto the island using a derrick system.

Research on the Southeast Farallon Island would be conducted year round. Most intertidal areas of the island, where pinnipeds are present, would be rarely visited in seabird research. Most potential for incidental take will occur at the island's 2 landings, North Landing and East Landing. These sites would be visited approximately 1 - 3 times per day by researchers. In both locations researchers would not be approaching less than 50 ft (15 m) from any pinnipeds which may be hauled out. Most visits to these areas would be brief (approximately 15 minutes), though seabird observers would be present from 2 - 5 hours daily at North Landing from early April early August to conduct observational studies on breeding Common Murres. Boat landings to re-supply the field station, lasting 1 - 3 hours, would be conducted once every 2 weeks at one of the these locations. Activities involve launching of the boat with one operator, with 2 - 4 other researchers assisting with the operations from land. At East Landing, the primary landing site, all personnel assisting with the landing would stay on the loading platform 30 ft (9 m) above the water. At North Landing, loading operations would occur at the water level in the intertidal.

Ano Nuevo Island is located 0.25 mi (0.4 km) offshore of Ano Nuevo Point in San Mateo County, California (37°06′N, 122°20′W). All seabird research work on the Ano Nuevo Island would be in collaborations with Oikonos - Ecosystem Knowledge and through a collaborative agreement with the California State Parks. Procedures include accessing the island by a 12 ft (3.7 m) Zodiac boat. Non-breeding pinnipeds may occasionally be present on the small beach in the center of the island where the boat would be landed. Sea lions may also occasionally be present near a small group of subterranean seabird nest boxes on the island terrace. There are usually 2 - 3 researchers involved in island visits.

Research on the Ano Nuevo Island would be conducted once per week from April to August, and occasional intermittent visits would be made during the rest of the year. A component of the seabird research involves nesting habitat restoration and monitoring, which requires sporadic visits from September to November, between the seabird breeding season and the elephant seal pupping season. Most intertidal areas of the island where marine mammals are present will not be visited during seabird research, excepting the landing beach. Most likely, marine mammal incidental take would occur at this location as well as just north of this beach up on the island's terrace where a small number of seabird nest boxes are located. The landing beach would be visited upon arrival and departure during the weekly visit, and the nest boxes would be checked once on the day of visit. In both locations researchers would not approach less than 50 ft (15 m) away from any pinnipeds which may be hauled out. Landings and visits to nest boxes would be brief (approximately 15 minutes).

Point Reyes NS is located 40 miles (64 km) north of San Francisco Bay, California. The National Park Service (NPS) conducts research, resource management and routine maintenance services at Point Reyes NS. Research along the seashore includes monitoring seabird breeding and roosting colonies. Seabird monitoring usually would involve one or two observers. Surveys would be conducted in small, 14 - 22 ft (4.3 - 6.7 m) open motorboats that survey along the shoreline. These activities could result in the incidental harassment of pinnipeds. Additionally, NPS would also conduct habitat restoration of the seashore, which would include removal of non-native plants and restoration of coastal dune habitat. Non-native plant removal would be timed to avoid the breeding seasons of pinnipeds, however, on occasion non-breeding animals may be present at various beaches throughout the year.

The marine mammals most likely to be found in the proposed seabird research areas are the California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, Steller sea lions, and northern elephant seals. General information of these species can be found in Caretta et al. (2007), which is available at the following URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/po2006.pdf . Refer to that document for information on these species. Additional information on these species is presented below.

The northern elephant breeding population is distributed from central Baja California, Mexico, to the Point Reyes Peninsula in northern California. Along this coastline there are 13 major breeding colonies. The northern elephant seal was exploited for its oil during the 18th and 19th centuries and by 1900 the population was reduced to 20-30 individuals on Guadalupe Island (Hoelzel et al. , 1993; Hoelzel, 1999). As a result of this bottleneck the genetic diversity found in this species is extremely low (Hoelzel, 1999). The recent formation of most rookeries indicates that there is no genetic differentiation among populations. Although movement and genetic exchange occurs among colonies, most seals return to their natal site to breed (Huber et al. , 1991). Recolonization of their former breeding range progressed north from the San Benito and Guadalupe Islands off Baja California to the most recent northernmost breeding site at Point Reyes Headlands. In the last three decades, annual pup production has increased at the rate of 9.43 + or −0.51 percent per year in California and 5.19 + or −0.33 percent per year over the entire range (Barlow et al. , 1993). A complete population count of elephant seals is not possible because all age classes are not ashore at the same time. Elephant seal population size is usually estimated by counting the number of pups produced and multiplying by the inverse of the expected ratio of pups to total animals (McCann, 1985). Stewart et al. (1994) used McCann's multiplier of 4.5 to extrapolate from 28,164 pups to a population estimate of 127,000 elephant seals in the U.S. and Mexico in 1991. The multiplier of 4.5 was based on a stable population. Boveng (1988) and Barlow et al. (1993) argue that a multiplier of 3.5 is more appropriate for a rapidly growing population such as the California stock of elephant seals. Based on the estimated 28,450 pups born in California and this 3.5 multiplier, the California stock was approximately 101,000 in 2001 (Carretta et al. , 2002). At Point Reyes, the population grew at 32.8 percent per year between 1988 and 1997 (Sydeman and Allen, 1999) and around 10 percent per year since 2000 (S. Allen, unpubl. data), and in 2006 around 700 pups were born at three primary breeding areas. The population on the Farallon Islands has declined by 3.4 percent per year since 1983, and in recent years numbers have fluctuated between 100 and 200 pups (W. Sydeman, D. Lee, unpubl. data).

Elephant seals congregate in central California to breed from late November to March. Females typically give birth to a single pup and attend the pup for up to 6 weeks. Breeding occurs after the pup is weaned by attending males. After breeding, seals migrate to the Gulf of Alaska or deeper waters in the eastern Pacific. Adult females and juveniles return to terrestrial colonies to molt in April and May, and males return in June and July to molt, remaining onshore for around 3 weeks.

Harbor seals are one of the most widely distributed northern hemisphere pinnipeds and are found in coastal, estuarine and some times fresh water of both the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Oceans. There is considerable regional genetic differentiation between harbor seal populations as they are generally limited in migratory movements. Under the MMPA, six stocks of Pacific harbor seals are identified within the U.S. waters (Angliss and Lodge, 2004; Carretta et al. , 2006). Only the California stock of harbor seal is found in the proposed project area, and its abundance is estimated to be 34,233 (Carretta et al. , 2006). There is some question whether the San Francisco Bay population may be a separate stock based on genetic analyses (D. German, Sonoma State University, pers. com.). At Point Reyes, the harbor seal population is estimated to be 7,524 for the molt season based on a correction factor of 1.65 (Lowry et al. , 2005; Manna et al. , 2006).

In central California, harbor seals breed annually from March through May and molt in June and July. Females give birth to a single pup and attend the pup for around 30 days, at which time they wean pups. Mating occurs in the water around the time of weaning. Harbor seals are resident year round at terrestrial colonies, however, juveniles may disperse to other colonies ranging up to 500 km (311 mi). Individual adult seals may also migrate widely from breeding colonies.

California sea lions range from southern Mexico up to British Columbia and breed almost entirely on islands in southern California, Western Baja California and the Gulf of California. In recent years, California sea lions have begun to breed annually in small numbers at Ano Nuevo Island and South Farallon Island, California. One abandoned pup was found at Point Reyes NS at Wildcat Beach in 2003. This species is separated into three recognized stocks based on three geographic regions (U.S. stock, Western Baja stock, and the Gulf of California stock; Lowry et al. 1992). Some movement has been documented between these geographic stocks, but rookeries in the U.S. are widely separated from major rookeries of western Baja California, Mexico (Barlow et al. , 1995). The U.S. stock of California sea lion is the only stock present in the proposed research area. The California sea lion has the largest population of any sea lion species and is the only sea lion whose population is showing a healthy growth rate of 5 to 6.2 percent per annum. Annual incidental takes in fisheries is approximately 915 individuals; however, the population is growing by 8.2 percent per year and fishing mortality is declining (Barlow et al. , 1995). Current U.S. population estimates range from 237,000 to 244,000 (Carretta et al. , 2007).

California sea lions give birth in May through July and breeding occurs in July and August. Females and pups are resident at breeding colonies year round and males migrate north to feeding areas from central California to British Columbia, Canada. During years of low food availability (e.g., El Nino Southern Oscillation, or ENSO), females and juveniles may also migrate north in search of prey; and in some particularly poor years (1997 - 1998), there can be mass mortality of pups at rookeries.

On the Farallon Islands California sea lions haul out in many intertidal areas year round, fluctuating from several hundred to several thousand animals. Breeding animals are concentrated in areas where researchers would not visit (PRBO, unpublished data).

California sea lions at Point Reyes haul out at only a couple locations, but will occur on human structures such as boat ramps. The annual population averages around 300 - 500 during the fall through spring months, although on occasion, several thousand sea lions can arrive depending upon local prey resources (S. Allen, unpublished data).

Steller sea lions breed from the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea through the Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska, and south to central California (Merrick et al. , 1987). Two separate stocks are recognized within U.S. waters: an eastern U.S. stock that includes animals east of Cape Suckling, Alaska (144° W), and a western U.S. stock that includes animals' west of Cape Suckling. In 1990, the Steller sea lion was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the western stock was listed as endangered in 1997.

The eastern stock of Steller sea lions breeds on rookeries located in southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Oregon, and California (including the proposed research area). Steller sea lions give birth in May through July and breeding occurs a couple of weeks after birth. Non-reproductive animals congregate at a few haul out sites, including at Ano Nuevo and Point Reyes Headland. Pups are weaned during the winter and spring of the following year. On the Farallon and Ano Nuevo Islands, Steller sea lion breeding colonies are located in closed areas where researchers never visited, eliminating any risk of disturbing breeding animals.

Count of pups on rookeries conducted near the end of the birthing season are nearly complete counts of pup production. Using the most recent 2005 pup counts available by region from aerial surveys across the range of the eastern stock, the total population of the eastern stock of Steller sea lions is estimated to be 47,885. This is based on multiplying the total number of pups counted in southeast Alaska (5,519), British Columbia (3,281), Oregon (1,128), and California (713) by 4.5 (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007). Because the eastern stock of Steller sea lions is increasing within most of its range, using the 4.5 multiplier is a reasonable approach to estimating abundance from pup counts (Angliss and Outlaw, 2007).

Steller sea lion numbers in California, especially in southern and central California, have declined from historic numbers. Counts in California between 1927 and 1947 ranged between 5,000 and 7,000 non-pups with no apparent trend, but have subsequently declined by over 50 percent, remaining between 1,500 and 2,000 non-pups during 1980-2001. Limited information suggests that counts in northern California appear to be stable (NMFS, 1995). At Ano Nuevo Island, a steady decline in ground counts started around 1970, resulting in an 85 percent reduction in the breeding population by 1987 (LeBoeuf et al. , 1991). In vertical aerial photographic counts conducted at Ano Nuevo, pups declined at a rate of 9.9 percent from 1990 to 1993, while non-pups declined at a rate of 31.5 percent over the same time period (Westlake et al. , 1997). Pup counts at Ano Nuevo have been steadily declining at about 5 percent annually since 1990 (W. Perryman, NMFS-SWFSC, pers. comm.). On Southeast Farallon Island, the abundance of Steller sea lion females declined an average of 3.6 percent per year from 1974 to 1997 (Sydeman and Allen, 1999). Pup counts on the Farallon Islands have generally varied from 5 - 15 (Hastings and Sydeman, 2002,; PRBO unpublished data). The most recent pup counts at Ano Nuevo Island and the Farallones are 349 in 2000 and 287 in 2001 (M. Lowry, NMFS-SWFSC, pers. comm.). Pups have not been born at Point Reyes Headland since the 1970s and Steller sea lions are seen in very low numbers there currently (S. Allen, unpubl. data).

The only anticipated impacts would be temporary disturbances caused by the appearance of researchers near the pinnipeds. The potential disturbance might alter pinniped behavior and cause animals to flush from the area. Animals may return to the same site once researchers have left or go to an alternate haul out site, which usually occurs within 30 minutes (Allen et al. , 1985). Long term effects of this disturbance are unlikely, as very few breeding animals will be present in the vicinity of the proposed seabird research areas. The proposed seabird research would not result in the physical altering of marine mammal habitat. No marine mammal habitat is expected to be affected by the proposed action. No marine mammal critical habitat is found within the proposed research area.

There is no subsistence harvest of marine mammals in the proposed research area, therefore, there will be no impact of the activity on the availability of the species or stocks of marine mammals for subsistence uses.

It is expected that approximately 2,422 California sea lions, 500 harbor seals, 273 northern elephant seals, and 14 Steller sea lions could be potentially affected by Level B harassment. This estimate is based on previous research experiences, with the same activities conducted in the proposed research area, and on marine mammal research activities in these areas. These incidental harassment take numbers represent approximately 1 percent of the U.S. stock of California sea lion, 1.5 percent of the California stock of Pacific harbor seal, 0.3 percent of the California breeding stock of northern elephant seal, and 0.03 percent of the eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lion. All of the potential takes are expected to be Level B behavioral harassment only. No injury or mortality to pinnipeds is expected or requested.

The researchers would take all possible measures to reduce marine mammal disturbance for the activities described above. Researchers would keep their voices hushed and bodies low in the visual presence of pinnipeds. Seabird observations at North Landing on Southeast Farallon Island would be conducted in an observation blind where researchers are shielded from the view of hauled out pinnipeds. Beach landings on Ano Nuevo Island would only occur after any pinnipeds that might be present on the landing beach have entered the water. Ano Nuevo Island researchers accessing seabird nest boxes would crawl slowly if pinnipeds are within view.

Visits to intertidal areas of Southeast Farallon Island during research activities would be coordinated to reduce potential take. All research goals on Ano Nuevo Island would be coordinated to minimize the necessary number of trips to the island. Once on Ano Nuevo Island, researchers would coordinate monitoring schedules so areas near any pinnipeds would be accessed only once per visit. The lead biologist would always serve as an observer to evaluate incidental take and halt any research activities should the potential for incidental take be too great.

Researchers would take notes of sea lions and seals observed within the proposed research area during studies. The notes would provide dates, time, tidal height, species, numbers of sea lions and seals present, and any disturbances. PRBO would submit a final report, including these notes, to NMFS within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA, if it is issued.

NMFS has prepared a draft EA for public review and comment (see ADDRESSES ), that describes the impact on the human environment that would result from implementation of this action. NMFS has concluded, preliminarily, that no significant impact on the human environment would result.

NMFS is conducting a Section 7 consultation under the ESA to make a determination whether the proposed research project would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the eastern U.S. stock of Steller sea lions.

For the reasons discussed in this document and in the identified supporting documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the impact of seabird research on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS would result, at worst, in the Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions hauled out in the vicinity of the proposed research area. While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the survey period, may be made by these species to avoid the resultant visual disturbance, the availability of alternate areas within these areas and haul-out sites has led NMFS to preliminarily determine that this action will have a negligible impact on California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions.

In addition, no take by Level A harassment (injury) or death is anticipated and harassment takes should be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described in this document.

NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to PRBO for the potential harassment of small numbers of California sea lions, harbor seals, northern elephant seals, and Steller sea lions incidental to conducting of seabird research on Southeast Farallon Island, Ano Nuevo Island, and Point Reyes NS, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning this request (see ADDRESSES ).

I. Funding Opportunity Description

OEA, a DOD Field Activity, is authorized by section 3310 of Pub. L. 110-28 to provide special assistance to LEAs. These funds are intended to assist LEAs in the vicinity of a Service Academy, primarily where the loss of local revenue base, due to Federal property not being taxable, constrains an applicant's operating expenses and the ability to maintain educational programs. Five million dollars is made available under this Notice.

OEA is accepting proposals for grant awards, not to exceed $1.5 million per applicant. Proposals will be rated on content, responsiveness to this Notice, and budget. OEA will notify respondents within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a proposal whether their proposal qualifies to invite a grant application.

A LEA is defined as:

• A board of education or other legally constituted local school authority having administrative control and direction of free public education in a county, township, independent school district, or other school district; and

• any State agency that directly operates and maintains facilities for providing free public education.

Eligible applicants are LEAs, or a State or local government on behalf of one or more LEAs, in the vicinity of one of the following Service Academies:

• United States Military Academy at West Point (West Point, NY); United States Naval Academy (Annapolis, MD); United States Coast Guard Academy (New London, CT); United States Merchant Marine Academy (Kings Point, NY); or the United States Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs, CO).

For the purpose of this Notice, “LEAs in the vicinity of a United States Service Academy” means:

• A LEA where the total student enrollment includes school age dependants of Military, DOD civilian, and/or DOD contractor personnel employed on the Service Academy. Priority consideration will be given to LEAs where the school age dependants of Military, DOD civilian, and/or DOD contractor personnel employed on the Service Academy comprise at least three percent (3%) or 400, whichever is less, of the LEA's total student enrollment.

Eligible activities are limited to non-construction activities—for example, operational expenses (including salaries), conduct of planning studies and site assessments, and the development of financial plans.

Respondents are advised that proposals received in conformance with this Notice will be accepted and processed on a continuous basis to the extent funds remain available.

Each proposal submitted should include a cover or transmittal letter signed by the Authorizing Official on behalf of the Applicant. Text of the proposal shall consist of no more than 10 pages (single-sided) which must include:

• A summary of the problem or need the project will address;

• A profile of the LEA's student population that demonstrates compliance with the eligibility requirements of this Notice;

• A summary of Impact Aid assistance received from DOD and ED, and an explanation of how the requested assistance will neither replace nor supplant Impact Aid assistance;

• A description of how the respondent intends to carry out the work required to:

1. Resolve the problem or address the need; and

2. Benefit school age dependants of Military, DOD civilian, and/or DOD contractor personnel employed on the Service Academy;

• A proposed budget and accompanying explanation, demonstrating that not more than 50% of the proposed project funding will be from funds awarded under this Notice;

• Documentation that the Authorizing Official is authorized by the respondent to submit a proposal and subsequently apply for assistance under this Notice;

• A project schedule for completion of the work; and,

• A local point of contact.

Proposals may be provided to: Director, Office of Economic Adjustment, 400 Army Navy Drive, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22202-4704, or submitted electronically to: gary.willis@wso.whs.mil.

1. Selection Criteria—Upon validating the eligibility of the respondent to apply for assistance, OEA considers each of the following factors as a basis for inviting formal grant applications: content, overall conformance with this Notice and overall reasonableness of budget.

2. Review and Selection Process—All proposals will be reviewed on their individual merit by a panel of OEA staff, which may be augmented by other Federal or non-Federal technical experts (e.g. ED), as necessary. OEA will notify the respondent within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a proposal whether their proposal:

• Was successful and invite the successful respondent to submit a grant application. OEA will assign a Project Manager to advise and assist successful respondents in the completion of the grant application;

• Was unsuccessful and state the reasons why; or

• Remains under consideration pending the receipt of specific additional information.

1. Award Notices—A successful applicant (Grantee) will receive a notice of award in the form of a grant agreement, signed by the Director, OEA (Grantor), on behalf of the Department of Defense. The grant agreement will be transmitted electronically, or if necessary, by U.S. Mail.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements—Awards under this Notice are subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws including the following: 32 CFR Part 33, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments”; OMB Circulars A-87, “Cost Principles for State and Local Governments” and the revised A-133, “Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations”; 32 CFR Part 25, “Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement)”; 32 CFR Part 26, “Drug-free Workplace”; and 32 CFR Part 28, “New Restrictions on Lobbying (Grants).”

3. Reporting—OEA requires interim performance reports and one final performance report for any grant. The performance reports will contain information on the following:

• A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the period;

• Reasons for slippage if established objectives were not met;

• Additional pertinent information when appropriate;

• A comparison of actual and projected grant expenditures; and,

• The amount of Federal cash on hand at the beginning and end of the reporting period.

The final performance report must contain a summary of activities for the entire grant period. All required deliverables should be submitted with the final performance report. The final SF 269A, “Financial Status Report,” must be submitted to OEA within 90 days after the end date of the grant. Any grant funds actually advanced and not needed for grant purposes shall be returned immediately to OEA.

OEA will provide a schedule for reporting periods and report due dates in the grant agreement.

For further information, contact: Gary Willis, Project Manager, Office of Economic Adjustment, telephone: (703) 604-5164, e-mail: gary.willis@wso.whs.mil or regular mail at 400 Army Navy Drive, Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22202-4704.

None.

The purpose of the Draft SEIS is to provide decision-makers and the public with information pertaining to the Proposed Action and alternatives, and to disclose environmental impacts and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts. PWSD proposes to enlarge the Rueter-Hess Reservoir from the currently permitted design of 16,200 AF by 55,800 AF for a total storage capacity of approximately 72,000 AF. This is considered the site's maximum storage capacity based on the site's topography. The proposed expanded reservoir pool would inundate approximately 1,140 acres (an additional 672 acres). PWSD would maintain a 5,000-AF emergency reserve pool in the reservoir (elevation 6,110 feet) to be used as needed to provide a reliable water supply for its customers. The proposed design involves raising the currently permitted dam (embankment) by 61 feet, to a crest elevation of 6,220 feet, using a downstream raise concept. The final dam is proposed to be a 196-foot-high and 7,675-foot-long zoned earth embankment.

The purpose for the enlarged reservoir is to provide sufficient storage of Denver Basin groundwater, and the associated reuse water from initial Denver Basin use, for selected South Metro Denver area water providers, and to assist in sustaining the Denver Basin aquifers. The additional water to be stored in a proposed expanded Rueter-Hess Reservoir would come from existing sources (i.e., Denver Basin groundwater and associated reusable return flows). The reservoir would be used to manage supplies during off-peak times and use this water during peak times to reduce the need for instantaneous production from Denver Basin wells. In addition to the proposal to expand the reservoir, new pipelines would be installed to deliver the water to and from the new Project Participants (Town of Castle Rock, Castle Pines North Metropolitan District and Stonegate Metropolitan District).

In addition to the Proposed Action, the Draft SEIS analyzes two alternatives: (1) The Reduced-Capacity Reservoir (47,000 AF) Alternative, and (2) the No Action Alternative. The Reduced-Capacity Reservoir Alternative dam would be located along the same axis as the Proposed Action, but would be smaller in length (7,160 feet) and height (179 feet). The reservoir would have a surface area of 934 acres at normal pool. The No Action Alternative assumes that PWSD and the other Project Participants would continue their current operations of primarily providing water to their customers with Denver Basin groundwater by drilling additional wells to meet peak summertime demands. PWSD would construct the currently permitted Rueter-Hess Reservoir (16,200 AF) to obtain firm annual yield for the PWSD, focusing on meeting peak summertime demands. Stonegate would have some storage capacity (1,200 AF) in the currently permitted reservoir. Castle Rock and Castle Pines North would not have surface water storage available to meet their needs; therefore, their ability to capture and reuse their reusable return flows would be limited. Castle Rock and Castle Pines North would extract and use their reuse water only as it is being generated from their advanced wastewater treatment plants and lawn irrigation.

Copies of the Draft SEIS will be available for review at:

1. Parker Library, 10851 South Crossroads Drive, Parker, CO 80134.

2. Philip S. Miller Library, 100 S. Wilcox, Castle Rock, CO 80104.

3. Parker Water and Sanitation District, 19801 East Mainstreet, Parker, CO 80138.

4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Denver Regulatory Office, 9307 S. Wadsworth Boulevard, Littleton, CO 80128.

Copies may also be obtained from the Corps' third-party contractor, URS Corporation, Attn: Paula Daukas, 8181 East Tufts Avenue, Denver, CO 80237; 303-740-3896; Fax 303-694-3946; paula_daukas@urscorp.com .

The Business Plan EIS and ROD to which this NEPA ROD is tiered were prepared to support a number of decisions including the products and services BPA will market, rates for BPA's products and services, policy direction for BPA's sale of power products to customers, contract terms BPA will offer for power sales, and plans for BPA's resource acquisitions and power purchase contracts. Each of the issues in this Long-Term Regional Dialogue Policy has been evaluated for environmental effects. Some of the policy issues do not have the potential to result in environmental effects; others are a continuation of the status quo. For the remaining issues, any environmental effects have already been addressed in the Business Plan EIS.

Western, an agency within DOE, markets Federal hydro-electric power to preference customers, as specified by law.

These customers include municipalities, cooperatives, public utilities, irrigation districts, Federal and State agencies, and Native American tribes in 15 western states, including South Dakota. Western owns and operates about 17,000 miles of transmission line.

Basin Electric is a regional wholesale electric generation and transmission cooperative owned and controlled by its member cooperatives. Basin Electric serves approximately 2.5 million customers covering 430,000 square miles in portions of Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

Basin Electric has applied to Western for interconnection with Western's electric transmission system. Basin Electric proposes to construct and operate a 500 to 700 MW base-load coal-fired generation facility, water pipeline, transmission lines, transmission interconnection(s), and other associated facilities in central/north-central South Dakota. The purpose of the Project is to help serve increased base load demand for electric power in the eastern portion of Basin Electric's service area. Basin Electric's eastern service area is comprised of western Nebraska, northwestern and central Iowa, portions of southern Minnesota, all of South Dakota, portions of eastern Montana, and western and central North Dakota. The need for additional generating capacity is driven by the increasing electrical power usage of Basin Electric membership consumers. In 2007, Basin Electric prepared a forecast showing load and capability surpluses/deficits through the year 2021. The forecast predicts that by 2014, there will be a deficit of 800 to 900 MW for the eastern portion of its service area. Addition of 500 to 700 MW of base load generation to the east side of Basin Electric's service area by 2014 is one component toward meeting Basin Electric's future capacity and energy requirements.

Western intends to prepare an EIS for the proposed Project. Four preliminary alternative generation sites have been identified. During the scoping process, Western expects to refine this list of alternative generation sites and each of its associated facilities to determine which of them, along with the No Action Alternative, will be evaluated in detail in the EIS. The four preliminary alternative generation facility sites include the following:

• The Selby Site (about 2.75 miles southwest of Selby, South Dakota).

• The Selby East Site (about 2.5 miles northeast of Java, South Dakota).

• The Blunt Site (about 1.7 miles east of Blunt, South Dakota).

• The Onida Site (about 2.5 miles south of Onida, South Dakota).

These four alternative locations are in close proximity to coal fuel delivery service, water sources, and existing transmission system for the delivery of power to its members. The proposed generation facility would require new infrastructure, including a water intake structure along Lake Oahe on the mainstem of the Missouri River; a water pumping system; approximately 15 to 30 miles of water pipeline; approximately 40 to 110 miles of 115/230/345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line; a 230/345-kV substation and possibly a 345/500-kV substation; road access to generation, water pipeline, and transmission line facilities; and solid waste disposal facilities. No changes are expected for existing railroad infrastructure. Included in the infrastructure estimates noted above is a transmission line of approximately 40 miles in length from the Broadland Substation, about 3 miles west of Huron, South Dakota, to the Storla Substation, about 10 miles southwest of Woonsocket, South Dakota. Power system studies indicate this transmission system addition would be needed for the Selby and Selby East generation site alternatives. The transmission addition between Broadland and Storla is not necessary for the Blunt or Onida generation site alternatives. All other proposed water pipeline and transmission line facilities would be located in the vicinity of their respective proposed generation facility sites.

For the proposed 500 to 700 MW generation facility, Basin Electric proposes to use a single pulverized coal-fired steam boiler and a single reheat steam turbine. It would meet or exceed all applicable environmental requirements. The plant would burn sub-bituminous coal, known for its relatively high-moisture, low-sulfur content with excellent combustion qualities. The generation facility would occupy approximately 2,400 acres, including a turbine generator building, coal bunkers, boiler, baghouse, stack, wastewater treatment building, water treatment building, switchyard, raw water pond, cooling tower, landfill, evaporation pond, coal unloading facility, coal storage silos, coal storage pile, stormwater runoff pond, and coal yard runoff pond. During normal operations, the generation facility would operate at its maximum continuous rating output.

Basin submitted two generator interconnection requests and two transmission service requests to Western for the proposed Project. Since the proposed Project requires interconnection with Western's system, Western must comply with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as amended), Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). Because the proposed Project may involve action in floodplains or wetlands, the EIS will include, as applicable, a floodplain/wetland assessment and floodplain/wetland statement of findings following DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review (10 CFR part 1022).

Western is the lead Federal agency, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.5, for preparation of the NEPA analysis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will likely be a cooperating agency because of their jurisdiction over proposed water intake activities involving the Missouri River. With this notice, Tribes and agencies with jurisdiction or special expertise are invited to be cooperating agencies. Such Tribes or agencies may make a request to Western to be a cooperating agency by contacting Ms. Cunningham. Designated cooperating agencies have certain responsibilities to support the NEPA process, as specified at 40 CFR 1501.6(b).

This notice is to inform agencies and the public of the proposed Project and solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in preparing the EIS. To help the public frame its comments, this notice contains a list of potential environmental issues Western has tentatively identified for analysis. These issues include:

1. Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants or their critical habitats;

2. Impacts on other biological resources;

3. Impacts on land use, recreation, and transportation;

4. Impacts on floodplains and wetlands;

5. Impacts on cultural or historic resources and tribal values;

6. Impacts on human health and safety;

7. Impacts on air, soil, and water resources;

8. Visual impacts; and

9. Socioeconomic impacts and disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations.

This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts. Western invites interested parties to suggest specific issues within these general categories, or other issues not included above, to be considered in the EIS.

Public participation and full disclosure are planned for the entire EIS process. The EIS process will include public scoping open houses and a scoping comment period to solicit comments from interested parties; consultation and involvement with appropriate Federal, State, local, and Tribal governmental agencies; public review and hearings on the draft EIS; publication of a final EIS; and publication of a record of decision expected in Spring 2009. Additional informal public meetings may be held in the proposed Project area if public interest and issues indicate a need.

The public scoping period begins with publication of this notice in the Federal Register and closes August 31, 2007. Western will hold open house public scoping meetings (see DATES and ADDRESSES ). All meeting locations are handicapped-accessible. Anyone needing special accommodations should contact Western to make arrangements. The purpose of the scoping meetings is to provide information about the proposed Project, display maps, answer questions, and take written comments from interested parties. Attendees are welcome to come and go at their convenience and to speak one-on-one with Western and Project representatives. The public will have the opportunity to provide written comments at the meeting. In addition, attendees may provide written comments by fax, e-mail, or U.S. Postal Service mail. To help define the scope of the EIS, comments should be received by Western no later than August 31, 2007. Anonymous comments will not be accepted.

Authorities

Western is developing this Final RA Plan in accordance with its power marketing authorities, which include the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), the Act of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 844), the Act of August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), and the Department of Energy Organization Act of August 4, 1977 (91 Stat. 565), including all acts amendatory and/or supplementary to the above listed.

On February 9, 2006, the CAISO filed its comprehensive MRTU Tariff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission). 1 Under the MRTU Tariff, the CAISO proposed to end the current “must offer” structure and transition to a capacity-based system. In this capacity-based system, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and other LRAs establish procurement requirements for all LSEs within their jurisdiction to obtain sufficient resources to meet their load with an adequate reserve margin and to ensure appropriate resources will be made available to the CAISO in the day-ahead market, the hour-ahead scheduling process, and the real-time market. 2

On March 13, 2006, the CAISO filed its Interim Reliability Requirements Program (IRRP) as an amendment to the CAISO Tariff. On May 12, 2006, the Commission issued an order accepting certain modifications under the IRRP in Docket No. ER06-723-000. 3 The modifications established under the IRRP are intended to implement RA programs developed by the CPUC and other LRAs for LSEs under their respective jurisdictions. The IRRP adjusts the CAISO's existing operations to incorporate RA programs implemented by the CPUC and other LRAs for the period between June 2006 and the implementation of MRTU. 4 Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff, as amended to incorporate the IRRP and the MRTU Tariff, provides the guidelines for RA.

In the Commission's September 21, 2006, Order in Docket No. ER-06-615-000, which in part accepted and affirmed the CAISO's proposed MRTU Tariff, the Commission summarized the CAISO's RA program as follows:

In Paragraph 1116 of the same decision, the Commission concluded that meeting the MRTU RA requirements is a reasonable condition of participation in the CAISO markets and required that each LSE serving load within the CAISO-controlled grid maintains adequate resources and does not “lean on” others to the detriment of its customers and grid reliability as a whole. Under the current schedule, the MRTU Tariff is not expected to be implemented before February 2008.

Under the MRTU Tariff Western is an LRA. To ensure non-discriminatory treatment for load in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, Western, as an LRA, established interim RA Plans comprised of an Initial RA Plan and its Current RA Plan. However, due to the short time frame between the acceptance of the CAISO's IRRP and its effective date, Western was unable to conduct a public process before implementing its interim RA Plans. 6

Western conducted a public process to develop its Final RA Plan. As part of the process, Western solicited input from the public, including its customers and interested parties.

See Final RA Plan below for Acronyms and Definitions.

Western conducted a public process to develop its Final RA Plan. The steps Western took to involve interested parties in the public process were:

1. On April 19, 2007, Western sent an e-mail to all interested parties notifying them of the expected publication date of the Federal Register notice announcing the Proposed Final RA Plan.

2. The Federal Register notice was published on April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20528) which announced the proposed Final RA Plan, began the public consultation and comment period, and announced the public information forum and public comment forum.

3. On May 25, 2007, Western mailed letters to all interested parties transmitting the Federal Register notice (72 FR 20528) and reiterating the dates and locations of the public information forum and the public comment forum.

4. On May 2, 2007, Western held a public information forum at the Marriott Hotel in Rancho Cordova, California. Western provided informational slides as handouts.

5. On May 9, 2007, Western held a public comment forum at the Marriott Hotel in Rancho Cordova, California, to give the public an opportunity to comment for the record. One individual commented at this forum. In addition, two customers asked questions regarding the Proposed RA Plan.

6. As a result of the public information forum, the CAISO requested a meeting with Western to ask clarifying questions on the proposed Final RA Plan. All interested parties were invited to attend this meeting. Western met with the CAISO on May 16, 2007. In addition to the CAISO, six interested parties attended the meeting in person, and four interested parties participated via conference call. Notes from the meeting are included in the record.

7. In addition to the above meetings, Western communicated clarifying information on the proposed Final RA Plan to the following customers. This information is included in the record.

During the public consultation and comment period, Western received 11 letters containing written comments from the following organizations:

In addition to providing written comments, the Trinity Public Utilities District (TPUD) commented during the May 9, 2007, public comment forum. Western reviewed and considered all comments received by the end of the public consultation and comment period, May 25, 2007, in preparing the Final RA Plan.

The following is a summary of the comments received during the consultation and comment period and Western's responses to those comments. Comments are grouped by subject and paraphrased for brevity. Specific comments are used for clarification where necessary.

Comment: A commenter questions why it should pay for RA when it has a congressional right to power that is significantly higher than its peak demand. The commenter states that the Commission made it very clear that it should not have to buy RA from the market. The commenter states that the operation of the regulating reservoirs could be changed to meet RA (the Planning Reserves portion) for the use of Project Use and First Preference Customers without affecting water deliveries. The commenter states that since all the Central Valley Project (CVP) customers are benefiting from Western's proposal not to use the CVP regulating reservoirs to provide RA for First Preference Customers and Project Use load, all CVP customers should be responsible for paying the RA costs. The commenter provides three alternatives to Western's proposal for allocating RA costs: (1) Include the cost of RA purchases in the Power Revenue Requirement which, in the commenter's opinion, is analogous to purchases made to supplement the Base Resource (BR) that maximize the value of CVP generation for all CVP customers; (2) spread the cost of the RA purchases to Western customers based on the amount of supplemental power they need to meet their load above what is served by Western (this alternative is based on the commenter's opinion that there is a difference between those customers who have their loads met by the BR and those that do not); or (3) allow for the commenter to determine its own RA amount acting as its own LRA, and have Western factor this RA amount information into the amount of RA that Western is planning to purchase for those CVP customers that Western is responsible to purchase RA for and then pass on the cost based on how much RA is being purchased for each CVP customer. Of the three alternatives the commenter has proposed, the commenter notes that the first alternative would be the most costly for the commenter. While the commenter does not believe that the first alternative is the fairest for the commenter, the commenter realizes that it is the fairest for the group of all CVP customers as a whole.

Another commenter states that the CVP generation/transmission resources and their costs have been fairly allocated and sub-allocated to project beneficiaries. Whether a CVP water user or a CVP power user is a part of the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, the Western Sub Balancing Authority Area (SBA), or the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Balancing Authority Area has not typically mattered. The cost for CVP energy does not change based on the Balancing Authority Area in which the customer is located. In other words, all CVP water users pay the same amount for the energy they receive from the CVP. Similarly, all CVP Preference Customers and First Preference Customers generally pay on the same basis for the CVP energy they receive. The commenter strongly suggests that Western maintain this equitable process in its RA Plan. As such, all CVP water and power customers should be assessed the cost of the RA resource acquired by Western and not just those that are located in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area.

Another commenter believes that Western's current methodology of spreading the costs to implement Western's RA Plan to those customers that are situated in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area is consistent with sound cost causation principles. As such, Western's proposal to include Liquidated Damages Contracts (LD Contracts) that are backed up by reserves in the originating balancing authority area should also be treated in this fair manner so if there is a requirement for Western or any other balancing authority to provide reserves or firming services to satisfy the obligations to meet the RA requirements for those customers, these costs not be spread to all Western customers.

Another commenter feels that commenter's public agency members should not have to pay for RA in light of the fact that it is only using 55 percent of its share of the New Melones entitlement. The remaining 45 percent of its entitlement will provide for its load growth well into the future. The commenter is also concerned that control of the generating units by the CAISO could possibly reduce the amount of energy generation at New Melones and, therefore, potentially impact the commenter's entitlement. The New Melones entitlement was granted to public agencies within Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties to mitigate, in part, the adverse impacts the New Melones Project has on the local counties. Every effort should be made by Western to preserve the intent of this entitlement and not burden these customers with additional costs.

Response: The United States' CVP hydroelectric facilities are operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and are operated primarily to meet authorized project purposes that have a higher priority than power generation, such as irrigation and flood control. These purposes are determined by Federal law. 7 Western's flexibility to modify generation schedules and ancillary service availability is limited by these and other related constraints. Once the above obligations are met, the power remaining must next be used to meet the Project Use needs of the CVP. 8 After the Project Use needs are met, under Federal law and the 2004 Power Marketing Plan (Marketing Plan), the next priority for the use of the CVP generation is to meet the First Preference Customer loads. 9 The New Melones Project provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173, 1191-1192) and the Trinity River Division (TRD) Act (69 Stat. 719) (together, First Preference Acts) specify that First Preference Customers are entitled up to 25 percent of the power generated as a result of the construction of the New Melones Project and the TRD Project. Under Western's Marketing Plan, Western serves First Preference Customers with power prior to making power available to other Preference Customers. 10 Western recognizes that costs associated with the Planning Reserve Margin (PRM) are incurred based on loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. Western has analyzed the allocation of the PRM from a cost/causation standpoint. Western recognizes it markets power in excess of Project Use loads, and that First Preference Customers are entitled to receive up to 25 percent of the extra generation, which the TRD and New Melones Projects add to the integrated CVP system. Western agrees that the First Preference Customers in Trinity, Tuolumne, and Calaveras Counties currently do not utilize their entire allocations. Western agrees that both the Project Use loads and the First Preference Customers receive the generation of the CVP hydroelectric units under the Marketing Plan before it is marketed as BR power to other Western customers, and all Western customers are benefiting from Western's proposal not to use the CVP regulating reservoirs to provide the required PRM for the Project Use loads and First Preference Customers. By not utilizing the CVP regulating reservoirs to supply PRM for Project Use loads and First Preference Customers, Western is able to provide more preference power to other CVP power users. Western has the discretion to weigh the benefits and burdens of utilizing the CVP regulating reservoirs to provide PRM versus making purchases for PRM from the market. Based on the statutory entitlements to Project Use loads and First Preference Customers and the benefits to the preference customers of not utilizing the CVP for PRM for Project Use loads and First Preference Customers, Western has decided to include a portion of the costs associated with Western's obligations to meet the PRM for the Project Use loads and First Preference Customers in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area in the Power Revenue Requirement.

Western has determined that it will first allocate the costs associated with its acquisition of PRM on a load ratio share basis to the loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area for which the PRM was procured. Then adjustments will be made to these costs in recognition of the statutory requirements for Project Use loads and First Preference Customers. The PRM costs to be allocated to Project Use load will be limited to a percentage determined as a ratio of forecasted annual Project Use load to annual CVP generation similar to those used in Reclamation's cost sub-allocation of annual operation and maintenance costs. The remaining portion of the PRM costs for the Project Use load will be allocated to the Power Revenue Requirement. The PRM costs to be allocated to First Preference Customers will be limited to their First Preference Customer percentage calculated at the beginning of each fiscal year, as it is identified under Western's Schedule of Rates for BR and First Preference Power, currently rate schedule CV-F12, as it may be superseded from time-to-time. This percentage, when utilized for allocating PRM costs, will be subject to revision in October only and will not be revised in March of each year as provided for in rate schedule CV-F12. The remaining portion of the PRM costs for the First Preference Customers will be allocated to the Power Revenue Requirement.

The remaining Preference Customers on whose behalf Western is procuring PRM do not have an allocation of power based on similar statutory requirements. Their allocation is discretionary in accordance with Western's Marketing Plan. Under the Marketing Plan, such Preference Customers receive an allocation of BR, which is an allocation of power remaining after serving Project Use loads and First Preference Customers. Therefore, Western will continue to allocate the costs associated with its acquisition of PRM for these customers on a load ratio share basis based on their loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, and such PRM costs will not be included in the Power Revenue Requirement.

Comment: A commenter states that Western's proposed RA Plan is based on making only the reserve portion of Western's capacity available to the CAISO. The commenter further states that it understands the CAISO is expecting the entire resource portfolio (capacity serving load and used for reserves) to be available for CAISO use. Western should reconcile this apparent difference.

Response: Due to Federal policies in support of the Marketing Plan in Western's marketing and operations processes, Western cannot make CVP hydroelectric units available to the CAISO for PRM. Western will use the CVP hydroelectric units as Qualifying Capacity to meet Western's load in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. Western has made this clarification in its Final RA Plan. Section 40.5.1 of the CAISO Tariff and Section 40.2.2.2 of the CAISO's proposed MRTU Tariff require the Scheduling Coordinator (SC) for a CPUC non-jurisdictional LSE to provide the CAISO with a description of the criteria adopted by the LRA or Federal agency for determining qualifying resource types and the Qualifying Capacity for such resources. Western has followed the requirements in Section 40.2.2.2 and has included its criteria in its Final RA Plan.

Comment: A commenter requests that Western's Final RA Plan explicitly provide for a load serving customer that has a separate SC identifier (ID) with the option to “self provide” the required RA rather than being required to subscribe to the capacity provided by Western. The commenter routinely provides its own resources to serve load and may, in the future, also wish to meet its RA requirements through a similar procurement process. The commenter recognizes that any resource being self provided for RA purposes would have to meet comparable criteria that are used by Western to qualify as RA or otherwise as provided by the IRRP and/or MRTU Tariff. The commenter also recognizes that the option to self provide would need to be exercised in a timely manner such that Western has sufficient notice to act appropriately. The commenter recognizes that such self provision may not include Western's BR.

Response: Western understands that certain customers may want to explore other options for meeting their individual RA requirements. Western will consider a modification to its Final RA Plan at any time in the future if a customer presents an option to Western for self providing its own RA requirements that meets the requirements of Western's Final RA Plan, can be implemented by Western, is acceptable to the CAISO, and is consistent with the requirements of Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff.

Comment: A commenter supports Western's determination that the use of LD Contracts with firm transmission qualify as capacity for the purpose of meeting applicable reserve requirements.

Several commenters are concerned that Western's proposal to use LD Contracts to meet its RA Plan requirements does not explain what, if any, limits Western will set on the use of LD Contracts. The commenters state that under the CPUC program, which is applicable only to LSEs under the CPUC's jurisdiction, firm imports and unit specific LD Contracts may be counted as RA Capacity, while non-unit specific contracts are limited as RA Resources. The commenters believe that Western should adopt these limitations for the RA requirements that Western intends to meet through its LD Contracts unless Western is relying, for RA purposes, solely on LD Contracts with firm transmission to a tie point; i.e., import LD Contracts. In the case of such import LD Contracts, the limitations set forth in the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff will not be necessary, but Western should clarify, for avoidance of doubt, the nature of the LD Contract at issue. A commenter states that Western has a duty to ensure the resources it contributes to the CAISO Balancing Authority Area to promote reliability actually do contribute to that goal.

Response: In its May 12, 2006, Order in Docket No. ER06-723-000, the Commission states, “WAPA, as an LRA, can determine the extent to which liquidated damages contracts count toward its resource adequacy requirements.”  11 The Commission recognized that Western has the latitude to determine the extent to which it can use LD Contracts to meet its RA requirement. To address the concerns regarding the use of LD Contracts in the future, Western has determined at this time that it will begin to phase out its procurement of LD Contracts that originate within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. However, Western reserves the right to revisit this decision and may opt to use LD Contracts procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area in the future to meet its RA requirements if the CAISO's scheduling and accounting protocols are modified so that the CAISO's concerns about deliverability and double-counting can be properly addressed. If, in the future Western is able to use LD Contracts procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area to meet its RA requirements, Western may purchase LD Contracts within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area under its Final RA Plan. In contrast to LD contracts that originate within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, imports into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area are backed by reserves in the balancing authority area where the generation originates including imports from the SMUD Balancing Authority Area; whereby, Western meets both the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the Western Electricity Coordination Council (WECC) standards for operating reserves. In addition to the operating reserves that are already supporting the imports, Western will be providing an additional 5 or 10 percent of PRM, thereby, bringing the total amount of reserves that Western is making available to the CAISO for imports 10 to 15 percent or more depending on the SMUD Balancing Authority Area reserve requirements under NERC and WECC. Western has established amounts of PRM in its Final RA Plan that it considers sufficient to meet its responsibilities as an LSE meeting its loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, which prevents Western from leaning on other entities, avoids cost shifting, and is consistent with the terms and conditions of Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff.

Comment: A commenter notes that Western has developed counting methodologies that diverge from those in use for the majority of resources in the CAISO-controlled grid and has not provided sufficient justification for this approach. In particular, Western and the CPUC's methodology differ when it comes to the counting of hydro resources. If Western believes that the use of its own metrics merit the increased cost and burden, are a better representation of the capacity it will have to offer to the CAISO on a monthly basis, and are worth the potential detriment to reliability, Western has an equitable obligation to explain its conclusions and to help minimize any resulting difficulty in assessing relative RA contributions of entities subject to the IRRP and/or MRTU Tariff requirements.

Response: Section 40.5.1 of the CAISO Tariff and Section 40.2.2.2 of the MRTU Tariff require the SC for a CPUC non-jurisdictional LSE to provide the CAISO with a description of the criteria adopted by the LRA or Federal agency for determining qualifying resource types and the Qualifying Capacity for such resources. Western has followed the requirements in Section 40.5.1 of the CAISO Tariff and Section 40.2.2.2 of the MRTU Tariff and has included its criteria in its Final RA Plan. Western believes that using the 50 percent rolling 12-month forecast to determine the Qualifying Capacity and Net Qualifying Capacity for the CVP hydroelectric units is reasonable because this method takes into account the current water year conditions. Western looks at this information every year as part of its process to provide annual information to its First Preference Customers and Preference Customers under the BR contracts. In addition, although the CVP is a hydroelectric resource, the generation that can reasonably be expected is significantly less variable than typical hydroelectric projects. The CVP is not a run-of-the-river-system; it consists of a dozen, integrated, large, multi-use, Federal water and power projects with many dams and reservoirs throughout northern California. 12 The considerable storage in the CVP reservoirs enables Reclamation to meet water demands through dry and critical years at reduced, but reasonably predictable, levels. Another factor which reduces variability is the fact that the CVP is an integrated multi-reservoir project. The firmness and predictability of the CVP power resource is, therefore, significantly greater than most other hydroelectric projects in California.

Comment: A commenter states that Western, through the RA Plan, intends to meet RA requirements for Western customers residing in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. Such an approach appears to provide adequate separation of resources that are to provide: (1) BR and ancillary services to all Western customers and (2) resources that are procured for RA requirements for those Western customers residing in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. It is the commenter's expectation that future purchases by Western to meet RA requirements for certain Western customers within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area will be given the same treatment. The commenter further states that it does not view capacity purchases for PRM requirements to be the same as purchases made for CAISO RA requirements. PRM provides supply coverage to all Western customers regardless of whether that customer resides in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area or the SMUD/Western Balancing Authority Area.

Response: Western's Final RA Plan does provide a separation of the resources that will be used to meet BR and ancillary services to all Western customers from the resources that will be procured for RA requirements for Western customers residing in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area.

Comment: A commenter states that Western's application of the reserve percentage and the CAISO's application of the reserve percentage differ. The commenter states that Western needs to clarify how it will apply its reserve percentage and explain how it compares to the method employed by the CAISO.

Another commenter is concerned that the 5 to 10 percent reserve margin proposed by Western may prove inadequate. The commenter suggests that Western adopt a higher reserve margin and assure that this reserve margin is uniform throughout the year.

Another commenter believes that the reserve margin percentage for the RA Capacity procured by Western should not vary on a monthly basis or from season-to-season.

Another commenter recommends that Western consider procuring from the market only the RA needed to meet what used to be called planning reserves. The commenter suggests that Western add this procurement to what used to be called operating reserves (those reserves that Western is already obligated to provide) and present the sum total as Western's RA level. If so, while Western's total RA level may be more than 5 or 10 percent, the amount of RA Western purchases for planning reserves should arguably be less.

Another commenter wants to commend Western's staff for arranging to meet its customers' needs regarding the CAISO's MRTU RA requirements. While the commenter does not believe the RA requirements are truly fair or necessary, the commenter acknowledges the CAISO's ability to demand such reserves within its Balancing Authority Area. In addition, the commenter states that it believes Western's RA reserve acquisition plan for its Full Load Service (FLS) Customers fully meets reserve margins that could occur as a result of the commenter's operations. The commenter believes that the power purchased by Western for the FLS Customers comes with reserve margins that meet WECC and NERC requirements. The commenter states that the RA reserves that Western will purchase under its RA Plan will supplement and fully meet any reserve levels required under the CAISO's MRTU regulations.

Another commenter states that it supports Western's acquisition of generation capacity resources to be committed to the CAISO in order to meet the RA requirement.

Another commenter is concerned that Western's proposed PRM does not adequately address the variety of concerns necessary to assure reliable grid operations. The commenter states that the CPUC has adopted a PRM of 15 to 17 percent and has proposals before it to raise that percentage. The commenter states that the CAISO suggests maintenance of 7 percent operating reserves in order to meet WECC requirements. This 7 percent does not include accounting for a variety of additional concerns, including forced generator outages, forecast error, and uncertainties in resource counting conventions.

Another commenter states that Western's currently proposed RA Plan calls for a seasonal PRM ranging from 5 to 10 percent. The description of this PRM and Western's Proposed RA Plan and the discussion held with the CAISO on May 16, 2007, make it clear that Western's RA Plan confuses the PRM element by misapplying capacity and energy issues, collapsing operational and planning reserve concepts, avoiding obligations to make resources available to the CAISO and to contribute to local RA needs, misunderstanding RA import allocations, and providing for load forecasting methodologies that are not permissible under the IRRP and/or MRTU Tariff. The commenter states that although Western does have some flexibility to determine its own PRM and is not bound by the CAISO default level, Western has the burden to show that any level proposed below the default will be sufficient to prevent leaning and consequent cost shifting. Given the level of load served by Western in California, a PRM at least on par with the minimum adopted for CPUC jurisdictional LSEs, currently 15 percent, should be expected to prevent Western from leaning on other entities.

A commenter states that Western's RA Plans propose to establish a peak seasonal PRM of 10 percent and an off-peak seasonal PRM of 5 percent. At a May 16, 2007, meeting with the CAISO, the CAISO claimed that Western misunderstood the underpinnings of the PRM because the stated values did not incorporate the expected provision of required operating reserves. For instance, the CPUC derived its 15 to 17 percent PRM to account for: (1) The LSE's demand; (2) the LSE's proportionate share of operating reserves; (3) generator forced outages; and (4) intrinsic forecast error. Western, or the LRA it serves, has the authority to determine its PRM. The commenter requests that Western consider PRMs that fully incorporate, at a minimum, for the above-described factors and that it fully explain the development of the revised PRMs.

Response: While Western is not required to submit an RA Plan, Western has voluntarily done so to comply with the spirit of the Commission's order and to assist the CAISO to meet its CPUC obligations. The CAISO Tariff and the MRTU Tariff acknowledge that Western, as an LRA, may establish its own RA Plan and its own level of PRM.

For imports, Western has chosen to provide more reserves to the CAISO during the summer peak months when reserves are more critical to the CAISO. In addition to the operating reserves that are already supporting imports, Western will be providing an additional 5 or 10 percent of PRM, thereby, bringing the total amount of reserves that Western is providing for imports to 10 to 15 percent or more depending on the SMUD Balancing Authority Area reserve requirements. Because imports into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area are backed by reserves in the balancing authority area where the generation originates, including imports from the SMUD Balancing Authority Area whereby Western meets both NERC and WECC standards for operating reserves, Western is already meeting its requirements for operating reserves and will not be modifying the amount of PRM it will procure for imports into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. As part of its Final RA Plan for imports, Western is adopting the 5 to 10 percent PRM outlined in its proposed Final RA Plan; however, Western will make it clear that such resources must be backed by appropriate NERC and WECC reserves. Because Western will require its imports to carry NERC and WECC reserves, during the critical summer months, imports under Western's Final RA Plan will have the equivalent of up to 15 percent PRM or more depending on the SMUD Balancing Authority Area operating reserve requirement to meet NERC and WECC standards.

Also factoring into Western's decision is information that Western received at a May 16, 2007, public meeting with the CAISO in which the CAISO explained that the 15 to 17 percent PRM that CPUC jurisdictional entities are required to provide to the CAISO includes the WECC operating reserves. Western modified the amounts of PRM that it will provide to the CAISO for resources, including LD Contracts, procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area until such time as the procurement of LD Contracts is phased out by Western. For these resources, Western is adopting a 15 percent PRM for all months, which includes capacity to cover operating reserves for those resources within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, which the CAISO states does not include operating reserves.

Western has established amounts of additional capacity in its Final RA Plan that it considers sufficient to meet its responsibilities as an LSE meeting its loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, which prevents Western from leaning on other entities, avoids cost shifting, and is consistent with the terms and conditions of Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and the MRTU Tariff.

As for the commenter's concerns about Western avoiding its contribution to local RA needs, please see response in section entitled “Local Capacity Area Resource Commitments.”

As for the commenter's concerns about Western using load forecasting methodologies that are not permissible under the CAISO Tariff and/or MRTU Tariff, although Western is not required to do so, Western has submitted and intends to continue to submit relevant load data to the California Energy Commission (CEC) so that the CEC can provide coincident peak information to the CAISO.

Comment: Several commenters state that Western has not addressed how it will meet the locational aspects of the CAISO's capacity planning requirements and that Western's Final RA Plan should address its obligations to contribute to local RA needs.

Response: Based on the information presented during the consultation and comment period, Western has revised its RA Plan to address locational aspects of the CAISO's capacity planning requirements. Specifically, beginning with calendar year 2008, Western plans to follow the terms and conditions of Section 43 of the CAISO Tariff as it relates to the procurement of LRA and Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff as it relates to the procurement of Local Capacity Area Resources to the extent there are resources available to purchase.

Comment: A commenter notes that Western's proposed RA Plan does not provide for the provision of reserves pursuant to Sections 40.1.1, 40.2.3, and 40.5 of the MRTU Tariff. These MRTU Tariff sections provide for reserves to be made available pursuant to a “Modified Reserve Sharing LSE” option. The commenter believes there are potential benefits to be derived from this option and strongly recommends and encourages Western to make the Modified Reserve Sharing LSE option available to its customers under its proposed RA Plan. The option would allow for the provision of RA based on a percentage of hourly loads rather than Western's proposal to provide RA based on a percentage of the monthly peak load. The Modified Reserve Sharing LSE option could greatly reduce the overall level of capacity a customer is required to provide to the CAISO.

Another commenter states that Western's Final RA Plan must make it clear how Western will meet its obligations as a reserve sharing entity under the MRTU Tariff and how it plans to stay within its share of RA import capacity.

Another commenter states that the SC for the LSE must communicate the election of either Reserve Sharing LSE or Modified Reserve Sharing LSE to the CAISO on behalf of the LSE. The commenter further states that Western must determine whether it is the SC, the LSE, and/or the LRA on behalf of its customers.

Response: Western's proposed RA Plan was prepared in response to the terms and conditions of Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff. Western's Final RA Plan clarifies how Western will meet its obligations as a reserve sharing entity. In accordance with Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff, each year Western has the ability to change its designation as to whether it elects to be a Reserve Sharing LSE or a Modified Reserve Sharing LSE. Since this election can change from year-to-year, this is not information that Western would include in its Final RA Plan, which is a document that Western does not expect to modify regularly. Under Western's current business operations and its current contracts, Western is unable to meet the necessary requirements contained in Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff to qualify for the Modified Reserve Sharing LSE option. Specifically, Western is not the SC for the resources it schedules to meet its loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. In addition, Western understands from the CAISO that all of the loads, for which Western is the LSE and the SC, must fall into the same category, either Reserve Sharing LSE or Modified Reserve Sharing LSE. If, in the future, the CAISO changes the requirements in Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff for a Modified Reserve Sharing LSE so that Western could meet the requirements, Western would have the option of changing its designation to a Modified Reserve Sharing LSE. Western would not consider such a change a significant modification of the Final RA Plan. Western has revised its Final RA Plan so that determination of Net Qualifying Capacity for deliverability within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area and deliverability of imports is consistent with the terms and conditions of Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff. Western is not able to address how Western plans to stay within its share of RA import capacity at this time as Western's share of the RA import capacity has not been determined. At this time, Western is an LRA and considers itself to be the SC and the LSE on behalf of its customers in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area for which Western is responsible for meeting their load. If, in the future, a Western customer desires to become its own LRA and LSE, Western is committed to working with that customer and the CAISO to accommodate the customer's request to the extent possible and allowed by Federal law.

Comment: A commenter states that the election status of an LSE/LRA affects the applicable Demand Forecast methodologies that can be employed. The commenter understands that Western intends to base its RA program on a coincident peak demand. The commenter urges Western to contact the CEC and submit the necessary load data to permit compliance with the MRTU Tariff.

Another commenter encourages Western to fully cooperate with the efforts of the CEC to address the RA contributions of all LSEs within the State of California and the efforts of the CAISO to ensure base, consistent, and critical contributions of all LSEs toward an effective and reliable grid.

Response: Although Western is not required to do so, Western has submitted, and intends to continue to submit, relevant load data to the CEC so that the CEC can provide coincident peak information to the CAISO.

Comment: A commenter states that it expects that current and future use of the California Oregon Transmission Project (COTP) and/or the Pacific Northwest-Southwest Alternating Current Intertie (PACI) will first be applied to meeting Western's obligations under the Marketing Plan before utilization for RA requirements for those customers located in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area.

Response: Western will determine the use of its transmission resources to meet its obligations under the Marketing Plan and its RA requirements to best meet the needs of Western and its customers.

Comment: A commenter would be interested in understanding Western's process for allocating its intertie capacity to other Western customers that may have future RA issues that are not necessarily tied to the CAISO RA process.

Response: This comment is outside of the scope of this proceeding.

Comment: A commenter states that Western should carefully review the import deliverability section of the MRTU Tariff in formulating its revised RA Plans.

Response: Western has revised its Final RA Plan so that determination of Net Qualifying Capacity for deliverability within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area and deliverability of imports will be subject to the terms and conditions of Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff. Under Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff, Net Qualifying Capacity is determined under the criteria provided by an LRA and consistent with testing and verification by the CAISO and deliverability restrictions. Under Western's Final RA Plan, Western has designated 100 percent of the forecasted capacity of all of its CVP hydroelectric generation facilities as Qualifying Capacity. In addition, Western has designated the contracted capacity from firm imports into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area as Qualifying Capacity and the contracted capacity from existing LD Contracts in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area as Qualifying Capacity. To address the concerns regarding the use of LD Contracts in the future, Western has determined at this time that it will begin to phase out its procurement of LD Contracts that originate within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area until such time the CAISO's concerns about deliverability and double-counting can be properly addressed. Western reserves the right to revisit this decision and may opt to use LD Contracts procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area in the future to meet its RA requirements if the CAISO's scheduling and accounting protocols are modified so that the CAISO's concerns about deliverability and double-counting can be properly addressed. If, in the future, Western is able to use LD Contracts procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area to meet its RA requirements, Western may purchase LD Contracts within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area under its Final RA Plan.

Comment: A commenter states that they look forward to the next draft of Western's RA Plan.

Response: In the Federal Register notice announcing Western's Proposed Final RA Plan for transactions in the CAISO's Balancing Authority Area (72 FR 20528), Western stated that it would evaluate all comments received and prepare its Final RA Plan. After reviewing the comments received, Western does not feel the changes it has made to its proposed Final RA Plan are significant enough to solicit additional public comments. Western's Final RA Plan is included in this Federal Register notice.

Western revised the Final RA Plan as a result of the comments received during the comment period. Western thanks all the commenters for providing additional information that Western used as part of its decision-making process.

The Final RA Plan will be: (1) Published in the Federal Register ; (2) submitted to the CAISO; and (3) used by Western when Western is acting as an LSE in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. The CAISO has established guidelines for RA and RA Capacity, which LSEs must meet for transactions in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. Both the IRRP and MRTU Tariff acknowledge that Western, as an LRA, may establish its own RA Plan. 13

Western understands that the California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 380 to require the CPUC, in consultation with the CAISO, to establish RA requirements for all LSEs under the CPUC's jurisdiction. 14 AB 380 requires LSEs subject to the CPUC's jurisdiction to procure adequate resources to meet their peak demands, planning, and operating reserves. 15 The state requires LSEs subject to the CPUC's jurisdiction to demonstrate that they have acquired sufficient capacity to serve their forecasted retail customer load and a 15- to 17-percent margin. As a Federal agency, Western is not subject to the state's jurisdiction.

In developing its final RA Plan, Western analyzed and weighed many different factors, including the Commission's orders related to the CAISO's RA requirements, the CAISO Tariff that incorporates the IRRP, the MRTU Tariff, the CPUC's requirements and default margins, the impacts on preference customers, similar treatment among the users of the CAISO grid, the limitations imposed on Western as a result of Federal law, and Federal and industry standards and guidelines related to reliable operations of power systems. The comments reflect a broad range of interests associated with the development of Western's Final RA Plan.

There are several distinct factors related specifically to the way that Western conducts its business that influenced Western's preparation of its Final RA Plan. The Final RA Plan contains detailed information on the factors that went into Western's development of the Final RA Plan. Western documents, as part of this Federal Register notice, the pertinent factors that influenced Western's preparation of its Final RA Plan.

The United States' CVP hydroelectric facilities are operated by Reclamation. The CVP Act, as amended, integrates the various CVP facilities. 16 The CVP is operated primarily to meet authorized project purposes that have a higher priority than power generation, such as irrigation and flood control. 17 These purposes are determined by Federal law. Western's flexibility to modify generation schedules and ancillary service availability is limited by these and other related constraints. Congress authorized the PACI to firm the CVP and authorized the COTP to support the Department of Energy (DOE) Laboratories and other Federal uses in the State of California. 18 Western imports power into its SBA over the PACI, COTP, and other Federal transmission facilities. In northern California, Western markets power from a dozen Federal dams, primarily those in the Federal CVP, under its Marketing Plan. 19 Under the Marketing Plan, Western executed the majority of its power sales contracts with its statutory Preference and First Preference Customers in late 1999 and early 2000. In northern California, Western has established a contract-based SBA within the SMUD Balancing Authority Area. Unlike other LSEs, Western sells power to a diverse group of customers in northern California, including large municipal utilities such as SMUD, the City of Redding, and the City of Santa Clara, as well as smaller irrigation districts, Native American Tribes, and Federal and state agencies. These customers are located within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, the Turlock Irrigation District Balancing Authority Area, the SMUD Balancing Authority Area, and Western's own SBA. Many of Western's customers are wholesale customers who are LSEs for their own customers. Other Western customers receive power from both Western and another utility, such as the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Under Western's Marketing Plan, and from a contractual standpoint, Western sells CVP generation to loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area from its SBA. Western is unable to use the CVP hydroelectric facilities in the SMUD Balancing Authority Area to meet PRM requirements because, in contrast to other utilities and non-jurisdictional LSEs in California, Western must follow Federal directives in its marketing and operations. The CVP hydroelectric facilities are owned by Reclamation and operated primarily to meet authorized project purposes that have a higher priority than power generation. Western's flexibility to modify generation schedules and ancillary service availability is limited by these and other related constraints.

Western's Final RA Plan addresses how the RA requirements will be met for those customers for which Western serves their loads and who are located in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. These customers are Western's FLS Customers, Western's four First Preference Customers, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center (NASA-Ames), and a subset of Reclamation's Project Use loads.

As used herein, the following acronyms and definitions when used with initial capitalization, whether singular or plural, will have the following meanings:

Administrator: The Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration.

BR: Base Resource—CVP and Washoe Project power output, determined by Western to be available for marketing, after meeting the requirements of Project Use and First Preference Customers, and any adjustments for maintenance, reserves, transformation losses, and certain ancillary services.

Balancing Authority: As defined by NERC: The responsible entity that integrates resource plans ahead of time, maintains load-interchange-generation balance within a Balancing Authority Area, and supports Interconnection frequency in real time.

Balancing Authority Area: The collection of generation, transmission, and loads within the metered boundaries of the Balancing Authority. The Balancing Authority maintains load-resource balance within this area.

CAISO/ISO: The California Independent System Operator Corporation.

CVP: The Central Valley Project—The multipurpose Federal water and power project extending from the Cascade Range in northern California to the plains along the Kern River south of the city of Bakersfield, California.

Capacity: The electrical capability of a generator, transformer, transmission circuit, or other equipment.

Commission: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Current RA Plan: That plan submitted by Western, acting as its own LRA, to the CAISO in September 2006.

Custom Product: A combination of products and services, excluding provisions for load growth, which may be made available by Western per customer request, using the customer's Base Resource and supplemental purchases made by Western.

DOE: United States Department of Energy.

Demand Forecast: As defined by the CAISO Tariff:  20 An estimate of demand over a designated period of time.

Energy: Measured in terms of the work it is capable of doing over a period of time; electric energy is usually measured in kilowatthours or megawatthours.

FLS Customers: Full Load Service Customers—The subset of Western's Preference customers that has contracted with Western to provide portfolio management services and meet their total projected loads.

Final RA Plan: This plan that Western, acting as its own LRA, has adopted in this Federal Register notice and will submit to the CAISO.

First Preference Customer: A customer wholly located in Trinity, Calaveras, or Tuolumne Counties, California, as specified under the Trinity River Division Act (69 Stat. 719) and the New Melones provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173, 1191-1192).

Initial RA Plan: That plan submitted by Western, acting as its own LRA, to the CAISO on May 19, 2006.

LD Contract: Liquidated Damages Contract—Firm Liquidated Damages Contracts are those transactions utilizing or consistent with Service Schedule C of the Western Systems Power Pool (WSPP) Agreement or the Firm Liquidated Damages product of the Edison Electric Institute pro forma agreement, or any other similar firm energy contract that does not require the seller to source the energy from a particular unit and specifies a delivery point internal to the CAISO Balancing Authority Area.

LRA: Local Regulatory Authority—The Federal, state, or local governmental authority responsible for the regulation or oversight of a utility.

LSE: Load Serving Entity—Any entity (or the duly designated agent of such an entity, including; e.g., a Scheduling Coordinator), including a load aggregator or power marketer; that (a)(i) serves End Users within the CAISO Control Area and (ii) has been granted authority or has an obligation pursuant to California State or local law, regulation, or franchise to sell electric energy to End Users located within the CAISO Control Area; or (b) is a Federal Power Marketing Administration that serves End Users.

Local Capacity Area: As defined by the MRTU Tariff: Transmission constrained area as defined in the study referenced in Section 40.3.1 of the CAISO Tariff.

Local Capacity Area Resources: As defined by the MRTU Tariff: Resource Adequacy Capacity from a Generating Unit listed in the technical study or Participating Load that is located within a Local Capacity Area capable of contributing toward the amount of capacity required in a particular Local Capacity Area.

Local Resource Adequacy: As used herein, Local Resource Adequacy encompasses all defined terms related to the Local Resource Adequacy requirements as set forth in Appendix A of, and as used in, Section 43 of the CAISO Tariff incorporating IRRP.

Modified Reserve Sharing LSE: As defined by the MRTU Tariff: A Load Serving Entity whose Scheduling Coordinator has informed the CAISO in accordance with Section 40.1 of its election to be a Modified Reserve Sharing LSE.

Net Qualifying Capacity: Qualifying Capacity reduced, as applicable, based on: (1) Testing and verification; (2) application of performance criteria; and (3) deliverability restrictions. The Net Qualifying Capacity determination shall be made by the CAISO pursuant to the provisions of the CAISO Tariff and any applicable manual or procedure.

PRM: Planning Reserve Margin—Western's Planning Reserve Margin shall be that amount of capacity in megawatts (MW) that exceeds the Demand Forecast for SNR's loads as determined under Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff.

Power Revenue Requirement: The annual revenue that must be collected from CVP power customers to recover annual expenses, such as operation and maintenance, purchase power, transmission service expenses, interest, and deferred expenses, and to repay Federal investments and other assigned costs.

Preference: The requirements of Reclamation Law which provide that preference in the sale of Federal power be given to certain entities, such as municipalities and other public corporations or agencies and also to cooperatives and other nonprofit organizations financed in whole or in part by loans made pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Section 9(c), 43 U.S.C. 485h(c)).

Project Use: The power used to operate CVP or Washoe Project facilities in accordance with authorized purposes and pursuant to Reclamation Law.

Qualifying Capacity: Resources used to meet load requirements. SNR has established the criteria for calculating Qualifying Capacity in its Final RA Plan.

RA Capacity: Resource Adequacy Capacity—As defined by the CAISO Tariff: The generation capacity of an RA Resource listed on an RA Plan and a Supply Plan.

RA Plan: Resource Adequacy Plan—As defined by the CAISO Tariff: A submission by a Scheduling Coordinator for a Load Serving Entity serving Load in the CAISO Control Area in order to satisfy the requirements of Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff.

RA Resource: Resource Adequacy Resource—As defined by the CAISO Tariff: A resource that is required to offer Resource Adequacy Capacity. The criteria for determining the types of resources that are eligible to provide Qualifying Capacity may be established by the CPUC, other applicable Local Regulatory Authority and provided to the CAISO, or the default provision in Section 40.13 of the CAISO Tariff.

Reclamation: United States Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation.

Reserve Sharing LSE: As defined by the MRTU Tariff: A Load Serving Entity whose Scheduling Coordinator has informed the CAISO in accordance with Section 40.1 of its election to be a Reserve Sharing LSE.

SBA: Sub Balancing Authority Area—An electric system operating within a Balancing Authority Area that is bounded by meters and is responsible for the performance of generation, load, and transmission connected to the Sub Balancing Authority Area's electric system.

SC: Scheduling Coordinator—As defined by the CAISO Tariff: An entity certified by the CAISO for the purposes of undertaking the functions specified in Section 4.5.3.

TPP Contracts: Third-Party Power Contracts—An agreement that a Full Load Service Customer has to purchase energy from an entity other than Western.

Western: United States Department of Energy, the Western Area Power Administration.

Western's Final RA Plan follows:

Western, Sierra Nevada Region (SNR), is a certified SC and an LSE for certain loads and resources within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. Acting as its own LRA, SNR establishes the following RA Plan. SNR is submitting this plan voluntarily to comply with the spirit of the Commission's order to assist the CAISO to meet its CPUC obligations in the development of its requirements. This RA Plan has been developed in accordance with sections of the current CAISO Tariff incorporating the IRRP and Section 40 of the CAISO's proposed MRTU Tariff and addresses: (1) Current load obligations; (2) qualifying capacity criteria; (3) deliverability considerations; (4) demand forecasts and protocols; (5) PRMs; (6) types of resources for RA requirements; and (7) local resource requirements for SNR's obligation as an LSE and SC in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. As an SC, SNR will apply these criteria to its monthly and annual resource plans.

This RA Plan applies to the following classes of loads served by SNR in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area: (1) Reclamation's Project Use loads; (2) SNR's First Preference and FLS Customers; and (3) NASA-Ames. These customer classes are defined later in this RA Plan. With this submission, Western does not alter its position nor does it waive any legal rights or defenses it may have regarding the applicability of the MRTU Tariff to Western including, but not limited to, any rights and defenses raised by Western in ER06-723-000, et al. and ER06-615-000, et al. and any related dockets.

SNR markets power in accordance with specific Federal statutes, 21 regulations, and policies. In contrast to other utilities and non-jurisdictional LSEs in California, SNR must follow Federal policies in its marketing and operations. 22 The following background information is included in light of this unique requirement. The information presented below is not meant to be exhaustive but may be helpful to better understand this RA Plan.

Western's SNR Office located in Folsom, California, markets power from the CVP and the Washoe Project. The body of laws applicable to CVP facilities is known collectively as Reclamation Law, including specific authorizing legislation for each CVP facility. 23 The CVP was reauthorized in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1937 (Act of 1937). 24 The Act of 1937 defined the priorities for the purposes of the CVP as: (1) Navigation and flood control; (2) irrigation and municipal and industrial water supplies; and (3) power supply. 25 The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) in 1992 modified the authorizations of the CVP to include fish and wildlife as a new authorized purpose. 26 Along with managing several threatened and endangered species in the CVP service area, the net effect of CVPIA was to establish specific mitigation objectives and to establish a CVPIA Restoration Fund, which requires payments from CVP water and power customers to fund activities to mitigate damages caused by the construction and operation of the CVP upon the native fish and wildlife resources. 27

CVP hydroelectric power is delivered to loads throughout central and northern California. Under Reclamation Law, the first priority for CVP power is to meet the authorized loads of the project including irrigation pumping, municipal and industrial needs, authorized fish and wildlife purposes, and station service at CVP facilities. 28 Approximately 25 to 30 percent of the CVP's power generation is typically used to support Project Use loads. Under existing laws, SNR markets the remaining power to First Preference customers and preference customers, which include Indian Tribes, Federal agencies, military bases, municipalities, public utilities districts, irrigation and water districts, and state agencies. 29

Western provides service to its customers under federally authorized marketing plans. Under SNR's Marketing Plan, which became effective on January 1, 2005, customers receive the net power output of the CVP and Washoe Projects after all project needs are met. 30 Project needs include Project Use loads, SBA operational requirements, and First Preference loads. The remaining power is provided to Preference Customers and is referred to as the “BR.”

Preference customers that receive BR are generally divided in three groups under the Marketing Plan: BR customers, Variable Resource (VR) customers and FLS Customers. BR customers are those customers that have opted to only receive BR power from SNR. VR Customers are customers that have requested supplemental power from SNR in addition to their BR. The third category of customers, FLS Customers, are customers that have their total load at specified delivery points met by SNR through a combination of their BR and supplemental Custom Product (CP) power purchases by SNR on their behalf. FLS Customers also can bring their own contracts to SNR for SNR to manage. These contracts are called TPP Contracts.

Under the Marketing Plan, SNR has four First Preference customers. First Preference customers are a special class of customers who are statutorily entitled to up to 25 percent of the generation added to the CVP as a result of the hydroelectric facilities built in their counties. 31 The two projects whose enabling legislation provided for First Preference power are the New Melones Project, which is located in Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, and the Trinity Project, which is located in Trinity County. As explained above, First Preference power has priority over other types of preference power in the Marketing Plan.

SNR serves several types of loads. Appendix A lists the SC IDs that SNR schedules and the specific customers included under each SC ID. These loads are served from CVP and Washoe generation, market purchases, and customer energy exchange accounts. The following describes SNR's load obligations:

Project Use loads have the highest priority to CVP generation. SNR has approximately 180 delivery points for the Project Use loads, the majority of which are located in the CAISO's Balancing Authority Area. These loads are first met with CVP and Washoe generation, and in hours when the loads exceed such generation, the shortfall is met either through a customer energy exchange account or from market purchases. Several of these loads, including the San Luis Pump/Generation Station (San Luis) and Dos Amigos Pumping Plant, are operated by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) as joint Federal/state facilities. CDWR serves as the SC. Occasionally, CVP project water is pumped at the State of California's Banks Pumping Plant which also is scheduled as Project Use load. A significant portion of these loads are served under an Existing Transmission Contract (ETC) on the PG&E system for which PG&E served as the SC. Under Settlement Agreement 06-SNR-00944, SNR and PG&E agreed to transfer the SC responsibility for a number of Project Use loads from PG&E to SNR. SNR began scheduling these loads under the SC ID WSLW in December 2006.

SNR has four First Preference customers all of which are located in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. Under the authorizing legislation for the New Melones and Trinity Projects, customers in Trinity, Tuolumne, and Calaveras Counties are entitled to have their entire load met from CVP generation, up to an amount not to exceed 25 percent of the additional energy generated by the CVP as a result of the project facilities constructed in those counties. 32 In Trinity County, TPUD has an allocation of First Preference power which currently meets its entire load. In Tuolumne and Calaveras Counties, the Tuolumne Public Power Agency, the Calaveras Public Power Agency, and the Sierra Conservation Center have allocations of First Preference power that meet their entire loads.

BR power is served to BR Customers, VR Customers, and FLS Customers. SNR has preference customers in all three categories located both in SNR's SBA and the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. This RA Plan is only applicable to those customers located in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. In accordance with Federal law and SNR's Marketing Plan, the BR power must be made available to these customers before it is sold to any other entity, and it cannot be resold by these customers. 33 If a preference customer has load in any hour, it must first use the BR power it receives to meet that load before using other resources. Under the scheduling protocols developed for the Marketing Plan, BR energy schedules for all preference customers are firmed 2 days ahead, and, on those days that CVP generation is modified after the final schedules are published, the SBA is balanced through day-ahead and active-day transactions in the energy markets.

SNR has several FLS Customers, and the majority of these customers are located in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. SNR has entered into contracts with these FLS Customers under which SNR has agreed to meet the total loads of these customers at specified delivery points. The load not met by BR energy or TPP Contracts for these customers is served from the market under long-term contracts for CP, and the portfolio is balanced on an hourly basis by day-ahead purchases or sales.

SNR serves four DOE Laboratory loads, three of which are located in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. DOE has contracted with SNR for Portfolio Management service, which means SNR is responsible for balancing DOE's loads and resources. The portion of these loads not met by BR energy is served from the market under long-term TPP Contracts, and the portfolio is balanced on an hourly basis by day-ahead purchases or sales.

NASA-Ames is a VR Customer that is located in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. In addition to receiving its BR power, NASA-Ames has contracted with SNR to have SNR make supplemental power purchases on behalf of NASA-Ames.

SNR sells supplemental power to two preference customers located in the SBA that is currently delivered over PACI. Since the loads are located in the SBA, and the only CAISO transactions are the schedules on the PACI, which result in an import into the SBA, the CAISO-established RA requirements do not apply to these schedules.

The criteria for calculating Qualifying Capacity may be established by the CPUC or other applicable LRA and provided to the CAISO. For purposes of this RA Plan, Qualifying Capacity is defined as resources used to meet load requirements. In this RA Plan, SNR has established the criteria for calculating the Qualifying Capacity. Net Qualifying Capacity is Qualifying Capacity reduced by the CAISO based on (1) testing and verification; (2) application of performance criteria; and (3) deliverability restrictions.

A few facts about the availability of CVP generation are relevant to the determination of Qualifying Capacity. The CVP consists of a dozen integrated, large, multi-purpose, Federal water and power projects with many dams and reservoirs in northern California. 34 Although the CVP is a hydroelectric resource, the generation that can reasonably be expected is significantly less variable than typical hydroelectric projects. The CVP is not a run-of-the-river-system. The considerable storage in CVP reservoirs enables Reclamation to meet water demands through dry and critical years at reduced, but reasonably predictable, levels. The generation from the CVP is, therefore, considerably less variable on an annual and seasonal basis than most other hydroelectric projects. Another factor which reduces variability is the fact that the CVP is an integrated multi-reservoir project. Reclamation can, thus, frequently meet its water demands from several different reservoirs. As an example, if there is a pumping requirement in the Delta for agricultural demands in the San Joaquin Valley, these water export demands may be met from releases at Shasta, Folsom, San Luis, or New Melones. Finally, all major CVP dams have reregulation reservoirs, which provide considerable flexibility to shape generation from the major power plants during the day without affecting downstream releases. A reregulation reservoir is a secondary smaller reservoir located adjacent to and downstream from the primary reservoir, with sufficient storage to allow a peaking operation out of the primary reservoir while maintaining a constant release down the river. This increased flexibility enhances the predictability to meet power demands. The firmness and predictability of the CVP power resource is, therefore, significantly greater than most other hydroelectric projects in California and elsewhere.

Forecasts of CVP generation are posted every month on SNR's Web site. SNR, in coordination with Reclamation, prepares an estimate of a rolling 12-month forecast of generation for the CVP on a monthly basis. Two forecasts are normally provided, one at 50 percent and one at 90 percent inflow exceedance levels. The 50-percent forecast assumes average inflows into CVP reservoirs for the upcoming water year, while the 90-percent forecast assumes critically dry year inflows. The 50- and 90-percent forecasts are very similar for the summer and fall periods when water releases from the CVP are provided primarily from reservoir storage. This is also true for the first few months of the winter season before rainfall starts to influence release schedules. The biggest difference between the two forecasts occurs in the January through April period when weather is a direct factor in determining water release schedules. The difference in energy generation from the CVP available for delivery to preference customers is about 20 percent between an average year and a dry year based on long-term studies of CVP operations. In contrast, the difference in energy generation between the 50 and 90 percent rolling 12-month forecasts that are published for preference customers every month is usually about 10 percent. This relatively small difference is explained by the fact that the rolling 12-month forecasts take current reservoir storage levels into account as the starting point, whereas long-term studies calculate reservoir storage levels based on sequential historical years. As a result, for purposes of Qualifying Capacity for the CVP, SNR has determined that it will utilize the 50 percent rolling 12-month forecast as the basis for forecasting Qualifying Capacity and Net Qualifying Capacity from the CVP for its monthly and annual forecasts.

SNR has several generation projects in the SMUD's Balancing Authority Area, which comprise the bulk of the CVP generation facilities. With the exceptions of the New Melones Power Plant and the San Luis and O'Neill Pump/Generation Plants (O'Neill), which are addressed separately below, all CVP generation plants reside in the SMUD Balancing Authority Area. SNR operates its SBA, which includes the Modesto Irrigation District's facilities and the COTP, within SMUD's Balancing Authority Area. In addition to being adjacent to the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, SNR's SBA is adjacent to the Turlock Irrigation District's Balancing Authority Area. SNR also has a direct tie to the Bonneville Power Administration's Balancing Authority Area through its firm transmission rights on the COTP and additional access to the Pacific Northwest through its firm transmission rights on the PACI.

Under Reclamation Law and the Marketing Plan, SNR's resources must first be utilized to serve Project Use, First Preference, and Federal preference loads. To the extent there is surplus energy, SNR markets such surplus at its discretion.

SNR designates its hydroelectric facilities in the SMUD Balancing Authority Area as a system resource with 100 percent of its forecasted capacity as Qualifying Capacity. SNR will determine its forecasted capacity by utilizing SNR's 50 percent rolling 12-month forecast for the appropriate month. The rolling 12-month forecast is discussed in detail above. This import into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area is backed with reserves as required under WECC standards from SNR's CVP resources in SMUD's Balancing Authority Area.

In designating the CVP facilities as a system resource, SNR notes that these facilities appear to be consistent with the definition of a system resource set forth in the MRTU Tariff filed on February 9, 2006, in FERC Docket ER06-615:

The New Melones Power Plant physically resides in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. SNR and the CAISO have agreed to pseudo-tie the generation from New Melones into the SMUD Balancing Authority Area. For all intents and purposes, this allows New Melones to be electronically and operationally included as part of the SMUD Balancing Authority Area. For purposes of Qualifying Capacity, SNR is designating the New Melones Power Plant as part of the CVP resource in the SMUD Balancing Authority Area. The ETC for delivery of New Melones generation into SNR's SBA is noted below.

San Luis is operated by CDWR, and O'Neill is owned and operated by Reclamation. Both plants are operated to meet both Federal Project Use loads and to comply with Federal/state guidelines for the coordination of the Federal and state water projects. By contract and operation of law, project operations for the CVP and State Water Project are coordinated in order to assure that water quality standards in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Estuary, as well as other applicable environmental operating criteria, are achieved. 35

For San Luis, SNR is deferring designation of Qualifying Capacity pending CDWR's submittal on how its capacity in this facility will be determined. Once that submittal is made, SNR, in consultation with Reclamation, will determine if the methodology is consistent with Reclamation's contractual framework with CDWR and also if the designation is consistent with Federal laws and SNR's policies. If CDWR's RA determinations are acceptable to SNR, the capacity associated with the Federal share of this facility will be treated in the same manner as the state's share. If CDWR's LRA determinations are not consistent with Federal law or the contractual framework, SNR will submit alternate criteria in an addendum to this document to address Qualifying Capacity at San Luis. Prior to SNR's determination as to whether CDWR's RA designation criteria is consistent with Federal law, SNR designates the forecasted capacity of the Federal share of San Luis as Qualifying Capacity. For O'Neill, SNR designates 100 percent of the forecasted capacity as Qualifying Capacity.

Under Reclamation Law, the capacity, as well as the energy generated from these plants, must be made available to meet Project Use loads and Federal preference loads. 36 The ETC for delivery of generation from these plants is noted below.

As noted above, SNR has several classes of customers on the CAISO-controlled grid. These customers include FLS Customers comprised primarily of municipal utility districts and Federal end-use preference customers and Project Use loads. Many of these customers and loads receive their power at transmission and distribution levels via the PG&E transmission and distribution facilities. Transmission level delivery to these loads is over the CAISO-controlled grid.

To meet its statutory and contractual obligations to serve the above customers and loads, SNR has entered into a number of long-term contracts, both import contracts into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area and LD Contracts within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. These are firm energy contracts as generally reflected in Service Schedule C of the WSPP Agreement. The terms of current SNR contracts range from 1 month to 5 years. The contract with the longest term was entered into in late 2004 on behalf of the DOE Laboratories and extends through 2009. In total, for the period from January 2006 through 2009, to meet FLS Customer obligations, SNR has entered into 40 contracts with varying terms. In addition, SNR has entered into four contracts to meet Project Use obligations. To the extent that these contracts are used to serve loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, the designation in this section shall be applicable. The energy schedules from these contracts that meet SBA loads are not addressed here.

Imports —The contracts that SNR has entered into that are imported into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area are considered firm under current industry standards and are backed by reserves in the balancing authority area where the generation originates. SNR will require that such contracts must have the appropriate operating reserves as required by NERC and WECC. SNR has existing firm transmission rights on the COTP and PACI for the contracts originating in the Pacific Northwest. Consistent with the Commission's Order in Docket ER06-615, for purposes of this RA Plan, SNR designates the contracted capacity from these existing contracts as Qualifying Capacity. Unless otherwise specified in a subsequent RA Plan filing by SNR, SNR also designates as Qualifying Capacity the contracted capacity from any future firm power contracts that are imported into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area.

LD Contracts —SNR has entered into several LD Contracts with varying terms in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area and will continue to use these existing LD Contracts to meet SNR's Qualifying Capacity obligations in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. However, to address the CAISO's concern regarding the use of LD Contracts in the future, SNR has determined at this time that it will begin to phase out its procurement of LD Contracts in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. SNR does reserve the right to revisit this decision and may opt to use LD Contracts procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area in the future to meet its RA requirements if the CAISO's scheduling and accounting protocols are modified so that the CAISO's concerns about deliverability and double-counting can be properly addressed. If, in the future, SNR is able to use LD Contracts procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area to meet its RA requirements, SNR will modify this RA Plan accordingly and such modification will not be considered significant. Consistent with the Commission's Order in Docket ER06-615, for purposes of this RA Plan, SNR designates the contracted capacity from these existing LD Contracts as Qualifying Capacity.

Net Qualifying Capacity is Qualifying Capacity determined under the criteria provided by an LRA and subject to testing and verification by the CAISO and deliverability restrictions.

For imports into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, which include both CVP generation and contract imports, SNR notes that it has sufficient ETC and/or transmission ownership rights reserved on its and others systems to deliver imports to the CAISO Balancing Authority Area. Specifically, SNR has the following rights:

1. SNR has a priority scheduling right on the PACI of 400 MW, which is not curtailable under the terms of Contract No. 04-SNR-00788-A unless the California-Oregon Intertie is derated below 3,000 of its 4,800 MW of capacity.

2. SNR is the operator and is also a participant in the COTP and has 177 MW of firm transmission rights into its SBA from the northwest (north to south) and 136 MW from its SBA to the northwest (south to north) over this 500-kilovolt line. The COTP is interconnected to the CAISO grid near the Tesla Substation.

3. SNR's ETC with PG&E for delivery of New Melones generation to its SBA is Contract No. 8-07-200-P0004. It provides firm transmission capacity for the delivery of New Melones power until 2032.

4. SNR's ETC for delivery of San Luis and O'Neill generation to its loads or SBA is Contract No. 14-06-200-2207A. It provides firm transmission and delivery service from PG&E for the San Luis Unit generation and loads until 2016.

5. SNR owns the Path 15 Transmission Line upgrade and has 150 MW of transmission system rights on Path 15 pursuant to Contract No. 03-SNR-00605. SNR has turned over the operational control of Path 15 to the CAISO.

The determination of Net Qualifying Capacity for deliverability within the CAISO Balancing Authority Area and for deliverability of imports will be subject to the terms and conditions in Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff.

The loads in SNR's SBA are not within the scope of this RA Plan. This RA Plan deals with SNR's loads in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area.

1. For its loads under the SC IDs WPUL, WSLW, WFLS, WDOE, and WTRN in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area, SNR will determine its demand forecasts based on the criteria set forth in Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff.

2. NASA-Ames will determine the average demand for a month consistent with current arrangements with the CAISO for forecasting this very unique load. As the SC for NASA-Ames, SNR will submit this data in accordance with the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff.

3. Eastside Power Authority will determine its demand forecast based upon the criteria set forth in Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff. As the SC for Eastside Power Authority, SNR will submit this data in accordance with the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff.

SNR will prepare its annual RA Plan and its monthly RA Plans and will include as part of those plans the PRM adopted by SNR. SNR's PRM shall be that amount of capacity in MW that exceeds the Demand Forecast for SNR's loads as determined under Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and the proposed MRTU Tariff.

SNR has determined that, for the purposes of this RA Plan, it will provide a PRM to the CAISO consistent with Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff, as amended and modified, including any modifications set forth in the MRTU Tariff as follows:

For June through September, SNR will make a year-ahead showing that it will carry a PRM of 10 percent for all imports into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area and a PRM of 15 percent for all LD Contracts procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area.

For January through May and October through December, SNR will make a year-ahead showing that it will carry a PRM of 5 percent for all imports into the CAISO Balancing Authority Area and a PRM of 15 percent for all LD Contracts procured in the CAISO Balancing Authority Area.

For its month-ahead showing, SNR will demonstrate that it is prepared to meet 100 percent of its forecasted monthly peak load consistent with the terms of Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff.

The resources that SNR currently uses are generation from CVP and Washoe hydroelectric facilities, long-term contracts, day-ahead transactions and real-time transactions to meet its load obligations.

Under the Marketing Plan, SNR markets generation from the CVP and Washoe Projects to First Preference customers and any remaining power is then marketed as BR to preference customers on an as-available basis. The term “as-available” reflects the fact that CVP and Washoe energy generation is dependent on weather and water release criteria as determined by Reclamation and, during flood control events, the Corps of Engineers.

SNR will not use the CVP and Washoe Projects to meet its PRM obligations for its RA requirements.

SNR will use capacity procured from qualifying resources either inside or outside the CAISO Balancing Authority Area to meet its PRM obligations to the extent there are resources available to purchase. In order to qualify, a resource must meet the requirements set forth in Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and proposed in the MRTU Tariff. For imports, SNR will follow the requirements of Section 40 of the CAISO Tariff and proposed in the MRTU Tariff.

Section 43 of the CAISO Tariff and Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff require that a certain amount of Local Capacity Area Resources be available to the CAISO within each Local Capacity Area identified in a technical study performed by the CAISO. The CAISO will allocate responsibility for Local Capacity Area Resources to SCs for LSEs using the methodology set forth in Section 43 of the CAISO Tariff while the CAISO Tariff is in effect and in Section 40 of the MRTU Tariff when it becomes effective. When notified by the CAISO of its share of the Local Capacity Area Resource obligation, SNR plans to comply with its requirement to procure such Local Capacity Area Resources to the extent there are resources available to purchase.

SNR reserves the right to make changes to this RA Plan, as needed, as a result of: (1) Changes to the CAISO Tariff including any changes to incorporate MRTU; (2) changes to SNR's RA Program; (3) changes required to comply with the applicable electricity reliability organization standards; or (4) as otherwise determined by Western at its discretion. In the event SNR modifies this RA plan, SNR shall submit the modified RA Plan to the CAISO.

Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The EPA then issues air quality criteria for listed pollutants, which are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants.” The air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.” Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes NAAQS for each listed pollutant, with the NAAQS based on the air quality criteria. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria.

Lead is one of six criteria pollutants for which EPA has established air quality criteria and NAAQS. Presently, EPA is reviewing the air quality criteria and NAAQS for lead. The EPA completed its Air Quality Criteria for Lead (“Criteria Document”) in October, 2006 (71 FR 57508; September 29, 2006).

As part of its review of the NAAQS, EPA is preparing a human exposure and health risk assessment.

In December 2006, a first draft of a technical support document, Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessments and Ecological Risk Assessment for Selected Areas (Pilot Phase) was released by EPA for public review and comment and for review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board (71 FR 69117; November 29, 2006) at a public meeting held in February 2007. An analysis plan for the risk assessment was previously reviewed by CASAC and the public. Comments received from review of the draft plan and draft pilot phase risk assessment technical support document have been considered in developing the Draft Risk Assessment Report being released at this time.

The draft report, Lead Human Exposure and Health Risk Assessment for Selected Case Studies, describes the design, methodology and results of the human exposure and health risk assessments for lead. It describes and presents the results from a lead exposure analysis and health risk assessment involving several case studies. The draft document will be available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_td.html .

The EPA is soliciting advice and recommendations from the CASAC by means of a review on the draft Risk Assessment Report at an upcoming public meeting of the CASAC. A Federal Register notice will inform the public of the date and location of that meeting. Following the CASAC meeting, EPA will consider comments received from the CASAC and the public in preparing a final Risk Assessment Report.

This notice announces an administrative hearing to reconsider CMS' decision to disapprove Virginia's title XXI SPA No. 6, which was submitted on June 29, 2004. This SPA was disapproved on April 20, 2007.

Under this SPA, the State requested the addition of new school-based health services to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Family Access to Medical Insurance Security (FAMIS) benefit package.

The amendment was disapproved because CMS found that the amendment violated the statute for reasons set forth in the disapproval letter.

The following issues are to be decided at the hearing:

(1) Whether Virginia provided all information necessary to establish that the proposed SPA, in the context of its State child health plan, conformed to all requirements of the SCHIP statute and implementing regulations, including:

(a) Information on the exact nature of the services to be covered; whether those services are within the definition of child health assistance at section 2110(a) of the Social Security Act (Act);

(b) Information on proposed provider qualifications necessary to ensure the quality and appropriateness of care pursuant to section 2102(a)(7) of the Act and ensure that services are provided in an effective manner pursuant to section 2101(a) of the Act, and;

(c) Information on the budgetary impact necessary to ensure that services are provided in an effective and efficient manner.

(2) In the absence of such information, whether a disapproval was warranted when 950 days had passed after CMS had requested that information.

The Commonwealth of Virginia's title XXI SPA No. 6 was submitted to the CMS on June 29, 2004, with a requested retroactive effective date of August 3, 2003. This amendment requested the addition of new school-based health services to the State's SCHIP FAMIS benefit package.

A request for additional information (RAI) was submitted to the State on August 18, 2004, which stopped the 90-day review period. The RAI included questions concerning the nature of the proposed services, the qualifications of the providers, and the budgetary impact of the amendment.

To date, the State has not responded to the request for additional information.

Section 1116 of the Act and Federal regulations at 42 CFR part 430, Subpart D, and section 457.203 establish Department procedures that provide an administrative hearing for reconsideration of a disapproval of a State plan or plan amendment. CMS is required to publish a copy of the notice to a State Medicaid agency that informs the agency of the time and place of the hearing, and the issues to be considered. If we subsequently notify the agency of additional issues that will be considered at the hearing, we will also publish that notice pursuant to 42 CFR 430.74(a).

Any individual or group that wants to participate in the hearing as a party must petition the presiding officer within 15 days after publication of this notice, in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(b)(2). Any interested person or organization that wants to participate as amicus curiae must petition the presiding officer before the hearing begins in accordance with the requirements contained at 42 CFR 430.76(c). A hearing may be rescheduled by written agreement between CMS and a State pursuant to 42 CFR 430.72(a).

The notice to Virginia announcing an administrative hearing to reconsider the disapproval of its SPA reads as follows:

Submitting Comments: We welcome comments from the public on all issues set forth in this proposed notice to assist us in fully considering issues and developing policies. You can assist us by referencing the file code CMS-2272-PN and the specific “issue identifier” that precedes the section on which you choose to comment.

Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking . Click on the link “Electronic Comments on CMS Regulations” on that Web site to view public comments.

Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a CAH provided certain requirements are met. Sections 1820(c)(2)(B) and 1861(mm) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establish distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a CAH. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 485, subpart F specify the conditions that a CAH must meet in order to participate in the Medicare program; the scope of covered services and the conditions for Medicare payment for CAHs are set out at 42 CFR 413.70.

Generally, in order to enter into a provider agreement with the Medicare program, a CAH must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 485, subpart F of CMS regulations. Thereafter, the CAH is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. There is an alternative, however, to surveys by State agencies.

Section 1865(b)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we shall deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program would be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for deeming authority under 42 CFR part 488, subpart A must provide us with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the reapproval of accrediting organizations are set forth at 42 CFR 488.4 and 488.8(d)(3). The regulations at 42 CFR 488.8(d)(3) require accrediting organizations to reapply for continued authority every six years or sooner as determined by us.

On September 28, 2001, we approved AOA as an accrediting organization for CAHs (66 FR 49677), effective December 27, 2001, for a six-year term. The AOA's term of approval as a recognized accrediting organization for CAHs expires December 27, 2007.

Section 1865(b)(2) of the Act and our regulations at 42 CFR 488.8(a) require that our findings concerning review and reapproval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's: Requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide us with the necessary data for validation.

Section 1865(b)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice that: identifies the national accrediting body making the request; describes the nature of the request; and provides at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish approval or denial of the application.

The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of AOA's request for continued deeming authority for CAHs. This notice also solicits public comment on whether AOA's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for participation for CAHs.

AOA submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for reapproval as a deeming organization for CAHs. This application was determined to be complete on May 31, 2007. Under Section 1865(b)(2) of the Act and our regulations at 42 CFR 488.8 (Federal review of accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of AOA will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

• The equivalency of AOA standards for a CAH as compared with CMS' CAH conditions of participation.

• AOA's survey process to determine the following:

Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the Federal Register announcing the result of our evaluation.

This document does not impose information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget did not review this proposed notice.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have determined that this proposed notice would not have a significant effect on the rights of States, local or tribal governments.

I. Background

In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces the quarterly meeting of the Practicing Physicians Advisory Council (the Council). The Secretary is mandated by section 1868(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to appoint a Practicing Physicians Advisory Council based on nominations submitted by medical organizations representing physicians. The Council meets quarterly to discuss certain proposed changes in regulations and manual instructions related to physicians' services, as identified by the Secretary. To the extent feasible and consistent with statutory deadlines, the Council's consultation must occur before Federal Register publication of the proposed changes. The Council submits an annual report on its recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) not later than December 31 of each year.

The Council consists of 15 physicians, including the Chair. Members of the Council include both participating and nonparticipating physicians, and physicians practicing in rural and underserved urban areas. At least 11 members of the Council must be physicians as described in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act, that is, State-licensed doctors of medicine or osteopathy. The remaining 4 members may include dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, and chiropractors. Members serve for overlapping 4-year terms.

Section 1868(a)(2) of the Act provides that the Council meet quarterly to discuss certain proposed changes in regulations and manual issuances that relate to physicians' services, identified by the Secretary. Section 1868(a)(3) of the Act provides for payment of expenses and per diem for Council members in the same manner as members of other advisory committees appointed by the Secretary. In addition to making these payments, the Department of Health and Human Services and CMS provide management and support services to the Council. The Secretary will appoint new members to the Council from among those candidates determined to have the expertise required to meet specific agency needs in a manner to ensure appropriate balance of the Council's membership.

The Council held its first meeting on May 11, 1992. The current members are: Anthony Senagore, M.D., Chairperson; Jose Azocar, M.D.; M. Leroy Sprang, M.D.; Karen S. Williams, M.D.; Peter Grimm, D.O.; Jonathon E. Siff, M.D., MBA; John E. Arradondo, M.D., MPH; Helena Wachslicht Rodbard, M.D.; Vincent J. Bufalino, M.D.; Tye J. Ouzounian, M.D.; Geraldine O'Shea, D.O.; Arthur D. Snow, Jr., M.D.; Gregory J. Przybylski, M.D.; Jeffrey A. Ross, DPM, M.D.; and Roger L. Jordan, O.D.

Nominations must be submitted by medical organizations representing physicians. Nominees must have submitted at least 250 claims for physician services under the Medicare program in the previous year. Each nomination must state that the nominee has expressed a willingness to serve as a Council member and must be accompanied by a short resume or description of the nominee's experience. All candidates are advised to consider the time commitment of 1 full-day meeting, quarterly. If a candidate's current responsibilities preclude this level of commitment, we urge the individual to reconsider his or her nomination.

To permit an evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest, potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning financial holdings, consultant positions, research grants, and contracts. Consideration will be given to each nominee with regard to his or her leadership credentials, geographic and demographic factors, and projected PPAC needs. Final selections will incorporate these criteria to maintain a committee membership that is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Selections will be made by February 2008 with new members sworn in during the May 2008 meeting.

Nominations to fill vacancies on the Council will be considered if received at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of the notice, no later than date listed in the DATES section of this notice. All nominating organizations will be notified in writing of those candidates selected for committee membership.

The meeting will commence with the Council's Executive Director providing a status report, and the CMS responses to the recommendations made by the Council at the May 21, 2007 meeting, as well as prior meeting recommendations. Additionally, an update will be provided on the Physician Regulatory Issues Team. In accordance with the Council charter, we are requesting assistance with the following agenda topics:

• Coverage with Evidence Development.

• Recovery Audit Contract (RAC) Update.

• Medically Unlikely Edits (MUE) Update.

• Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule.

• Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Proposed Rules.

• Medicare Contractor Provider Satisfaction Survey (MCPSS).

• National Provider Identifier (NPI) Data Dissemination Notice.

For additional information and clarification on these topics, contact the DFO as provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Individual physicians or medical organizations that represent physicians wishing to present a 5-minute oral testimony on agenda issues must register with the DFO by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. Testimony is limited to agenda topics only. The number of oral testimonies may be limited by the time available. A written copy of the presenter's oral remarks must be submitted to the DFO for distribution to Council members for review before the meeting by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. Physicians and medical organizations not scheduled to speak may also submit written comments to the DFO for distribution by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by contacting the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or by telephone at (410) 786-6132 by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

Since this meeting will be held in a Federal Government Building, the CMS Central Office, Federal security measures are applicable. In planning your arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. To gain access to the building, participants will be required to show a government-issued photo identification (for example, driver's license, or passport), and must be listed on an approved security list before persons are permitted entrance. Persons not registered in advance will not be permitted into the CMS Central Office and will not be permitted to attend the Council meeting.

All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector. In addition, all items brought to the CMS Central Office, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for the purpose of presentation.

Individuals requiring sign language interpretation or other special accommodation must contact the DFO via the contact information specified in the FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

The National Children's Study is a long-term study of child health conducted in the United States. By following 100,000 children from before birth to age 21, Study researchers hope to better understand how children's genes and their environments interact to affect their health and development. In the Study, “environment” includes factors such as: Air, water, and house dust; what children eat; how they are cared for; the safety of their neighborhoods; and how often they see a doctor.

The goal of the National Children's Study is to provide information that will ultimately lead to improvements in the health, development, and well-being of children. The primary aim of the Study is to investigate the separate and combined effects of environmental exposures (chemical, biological, physical, psychosocial) as well as gene-environment interactions on pregnancy outcomes, child health and development, and precursors of adult disease.

The Study will examine important health issues, including: birth defects and pregnancy-related problems, injuries, asthma, obesity and diabetes, and behavior, learning, and mental health disorders. By establishing links between children's environments and their health, and charting their development through infancy, childhood, and early adulthood, the Study hopes to determine the root causes of many childhood and adult diseases. Findings from the Study will benefit all Americans by providing researchers, health care providers, and public health officials with information from which to develop prevention strategies, health and safety guidelines, and possibly new treatments and cures for disease.

The Study will employ a national probability sampling approach to select locations for conduct of the study. The sampling design utilizes a multistage clustered approach. In the first stage, 105 locations (generally corresponding to single counties) were randomly selected from all U.S. counties. Seven of the locations will serve as the Vanguard Locations and will participate in the pilot phase of the Study. Because the focus of the study includes assessment of the impact of exposures that occur early in pregnancy, both pregnant women and their partners, and women of childbearing age, comprise the initial target population for enrollment in each of the Study Locations. At the time of enrollment, participants will be asked to provide written informed consent for participation in the study. Three distinct groups will be enrolled and followed: Pregnant women and their partners, couples planning pregnancy, and women not currently planning pregnancy but with some probability of becoming pregnant during the four year enrollment timeframe.

The National Children's Study is in a unique position to answer many questions regarding the effects of environmental exposures on the long-term health of children. The focus on exposures prior to and early in pregnancy is a unique feature of this study, as is the breadth of planned exposure and outcome measurements. As technology continues to evolve, stored data specimens (biologic and environmental) will provide a valuable resource to answer important questions for future generations.

The prospective longitudinal design of the study will permit an in-depth examination of the effects of environmental exposures as they unfold over the course of development. This will include an unprecedented, process-oriented understanding of how exposures at particular points in development lead to both immediate and long-term consequences for children, and what circumstances, characteristics, or genetic predispositions mediate or moderate the relation between exposure and outcome. The size and representative nature of the sample will permit both valid inferences about the U.S. population as a whole, and exploration of subgroup-specific patterns of adaptation and maladapation.

Additionally, the data collected for the Study will provide a platform for future research. Data, biological samples, and environmental samples will be available for future studies as science evolves and new questions arise. The Study will serve as an exceptional resource both for science and for society.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encourages the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the Proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of The proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Title: Transportation Entry and Manifest of Goods Subject to CBP Inspection and Permit.

OMB Number: 1651-0003.

Form Number: Form CBP-7512 and 7512-A.

Abstract: This collection involves the movement of imported merchandise from the port of importation to another CBP port prior to release of the merchandise.

Current Actions: This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date with a change in the burden hours.

Type of Review: Extension (with change).

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50,000.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 23 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,162,000 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: N/A.

If additional information is required contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202-344-1429.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encourages the general public and affected Federal agencies to submit written comments and suggestions on proposed and/or continuing information collection requests pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13). Your comments should address one of the following four points:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Title: Application for Exportation of Articles under Special Bond.

OMB Number: 1651-0004.

Form Number: Form CBP-3495.

Abstract: This collection of information is used by importers for articles entered into the United States temporarily. These articles are free of duty under bond, and are exported within one year from the date of importation.

Current Actions: This submission is being submitted to extend the expiration date with no change to the burden hours.

Type of Review: Extension (without change).

Affected Public: Businesses, Individuals, Institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1500.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 8 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,000.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost on the Public: N/A.

If additional information is required contact: Tracey Denning, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3.2.C, Washington, DC 20229, at 202-344-1429.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., app.), DHS hereby announces the meeting of the Departmental Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Related Homeland Security Functions (COAC). COAC is tasked with providing advice to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of CBP and related functions within DHS or the Department of the Treasury.

The third meeting of the tenth term of COAC will be held at the date, time and location specified above. A tentative agenda for the meeting is set forth below.

1. International Container Security Standards.

2. Post-Incident Business Resumption.

3. Advance Data Elements.

4. Secure Freight Initiative/Supply Chain Security.

5. Office of International Trade.

6. Intellectual Property Rights.

7. ACE Program.

This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished.

Participation in COAC deliberations is limited to committee members, Department of Homeland Security officials, and persons invited to attend the meeting for special presentations.

All visitors to the Ronald Reagan Building will have to go through a security checkpoint to be admitted to the building. Since seating is limited, all persons attending this meeting should provide notice, preferably by close of business Monday, August 13, 2007, to Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20229, telephone 202-344-1440; facsimile 202-344-2064.

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Ms. Wanda Tate as soon as possible.

The Proposed Action is located in Manhattan, New York County, which has been designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a moderate non-attainment area for particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM 10 ), a non-attainment area for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM 2.5 ), and a moderate non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard. New York County was previously designated by the EPA as a severe non-attainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard. The area is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants: Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), lead, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and carbon monoxide (CO). LMDC's review has been conducted consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B: “Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans” issued on November 30, 1993 (as amended on July 17, 2006 to address PM 2.5 emissions). LMDC has determined that, during the peak construction year of 2008, potential emissions for all the criteria pollutants would be below the de minimis thresholds established under federal regulations at 40 CFR 93.153(b) which are currently applicable in New York County. Nonetheless, the construction emissions could exceed the 25 tons per year (tpy) annual nitrogen oxides (NO X ) threshold for severe ozone non-attainment areas, which was applicable to New York County under the previous 1-hour ozone standard designation, and which threshold is currently an issue subject to litigation in federal court. Accordingly, LMDC has prepared its Draft Conformity Determination to demonstrate that the federally-funded portion of the Proposed Action would conform with the 1-hour ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP). Pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 93.153(h)(1), this notice lists the proposed activities that are presumed to conform to the New York ozone SIP and the basis for this presumption.

The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, defines a non-attainment area (NAA) as a geographic region that has been designated as not meeting one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Proposed Action is located in New York County, which has been designated by the EPA as a moderate NAAQS NAA for PM 10 , a NAA for PM 2.5 , and a moderate NAA for ozone. The area is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants: Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), lead, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and carbon monoxide (CO). EPA had re-designated New York City as in attainment for CO on April 19, 2002 (67 FR 19337); the CAA requires that a maintenance plan ensure continued compliance with the CO NAAQS for former NAAs.

A State Implementation Plan (SIP) is a state's plan on how it will meet the NAAQS under the deadlines established by the CAA. In November 1998, New York State submitted its Phase II Alternative Attainment Demonstration for Ozone, which addressed attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 2007 (New York submitted subsequent filings to EPA in subsequent years). On February 4, 2002, EPA approved New York's 1-hour ozone SIP (67 FR 5170).

The general conformity requirements in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, apply to those federal actions that are located in a non-attainment or maintenance area, and that are not subject to transportation conformity requirements at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart T, or Part 93, Subpart A, where the action's direct and indirect emissions have the potential to emit one or more of the criteria pollutants or precursors, in the case of ozone and PM 2.5 , at emission rates equal to or exceeding the prescribed rates at 40 CFR 93.153(b), or where the action encompasses 10 percent or more of a NAA or maintenance area's total emissions inventory for that pollutant. In the case of New York County, the prescribed annual rates are 50 tons of VOCs and 100 tons of NO X (ozone precursors in moderate 8-hour ozone NAA and PM 2.5 precursors in PM 2.5 NAA), 100 tons of CO (CO maintenance area), 100 tons of PM 10 (moderate PM 10 NAA), 100 tons of PM 2.5 (PM 2.5 NAA), and 100 tons of SO 2 (PM 2.5 precursor in PM 2.5 NAA).

LMDC has determined that the total annual direct and indirect emissions of all such criteria pollutants from the Proposed Action are less than the de minimis rates prescribed in 40 CFR 93.153(b), as currently in effect, that would trigger the requirement to conduct a general conformity determination. Therefore, a general conformity determination is not necessarily required by current federal regulations. Nonetheless, temporarily, during construction, annual NO X emissions are predicted to exceed the threshold of 25 tons per year that would apply to a severe ozone non-attainment area under the former 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, LMDC has prepared a Draft Conformity Determination to demonstrate the Proposed Action's conformity with the ozone SIP.

The purpose of the conformity analysis is to establish that the Proposed Action would conform to the New York ozone SIP, thereby demonstrating that total direct and indirect emissions of the ozone precursors, in this case NO X , from the project, would not:

• Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in the area;

• interfere with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard;

• increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or

• delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in the SIP for purposes of—

1. A demonstration of reasonable further progress (RFP),

2. A demonstration of attainment, or

3. A maintenance plan.

For the purposes of a general conformity determination, direct and indirect emissions are defined as follows (40 CFR 93.152):

• Direct Emissions: Those emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors that are caused or initiated by the Federal action and occur at the same time and place as the action;

• Indirect Emissions: Those emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors that—

1. Are caused by the Federal action, but may occur later in time and/or may be further removed in distance from the action itself but are still reasonably foreseeable; and

2. The Federal agency can practicably control and will maintain control over due to a continuing program responsibility of the Federal agency.

LMDC has determined that the predicted emissions due to the Proposed Action during construction that should be subject to its general conformity review would include direct emissions from (1) Non-road engines operating on-site during construction and (2) marine vessels carrying materials to and from the site and conducting other work along the waterfront, and (3) emissions from construction-related vehicles traveling to and from the site.

The Proposed Action would be located in an area previously designated as a severe ozone non-attainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The NO X emissions during two years of construction were predicted to potentially exceed the prescribed level for severe ozone non-attainment areas (25 tons per year). Therefore, LMDC has determined the following:

• The methods for estimating direct and indirect emissions from the Proposed Action meet the requirements of 40 CFR 93.159.

• The Proposed Action was predicted to result in the emission of up to 70.5 tons and 31.2 tons of NO X per year in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

• All construction-related NO X emissions, including those from the Proposed Action, are included in the emissions budget specified in the New York State Implementation Plan for Ozone—Phase II Alternative Attainment Demonstration.

• The Proposed Action does not cause or contribute to any new violation, or increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation, of the standards for the pollutants addressed in 40 CFR 93.158.

• The Proposed Action does not violate any requirements or milestones in the ozone SIP.

• Based on these determinations, the Proposed Action is presumed to conform to the ozone SIP for the project area. The activities that are presumed to conform include all construction-related activities that will receive federal funding for the East River Waterfront Esplanade and Piers Project.

Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the property will be required to relocate the building to their own site at their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to John Hicks, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-17, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Mark Johnston at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register , the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( i.e. , acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: Army: Ms. Veronica Rines, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Attn: DAIM-ZS, Rm 8536, 2511 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202; (703) 601-2545; Coast Guard: Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Attn: Teresa Sheinberg, 2100 Second St, SW., Rm 6109, Washington, DC 20593-0001; (202 267-6142; Energy: Mr. John Watson, Department of Energy, Office of Engineering & Construction Management, ME-90, 1000 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20585: (202) 586-0072; GSA: Mr. John E.B. Smith, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal, 18th and F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501-0084; Interior: Mr. Michael Wright, Acquisition & Property Management, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., MS2603, Washington, DC 20240; (202) 513-0747; Navy: Mr. Warren Meekins, Associate Director, Department of the Navy, Real Estate Services, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065; (202) 685-9305; (These are not toll-free numbers).