Title: Importation of Poultry Meat and Other Poultry Products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico.

OMB Number: 0579-0144.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq. ), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture is authorized, among other things, to prohibit the importation and interstate movement of animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into and dissemination within the United States of animal diseases and pests. To fulfill this mission, APHIS regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States. The regulations are contained in title 9, chapter 1, subchapter D, parts 91 through 99, of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The regulations in part 94, among other things, restrict the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Mexico and other regions of the world where exotic Newcastle disease (END) has been determined to exist. The regulations allow the importation of poultry meat and poultry products from the Mexican States of Sinaloa and Sonora under conditions that protect against the introduction of END into the United States.

To ensure that these items are safe for importation, we require that certain data appear on the foreign meat inspection certificate that accompanies the poultry meat or other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora. We also require that serially numbered seals be applied to containers carrying the poultry meat or other poultry products.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the information collection, 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 information collection on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response.

Respondents: Federal animal health authorities in Mexico and operators of slaughtering and processing plants in Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico, who engage in the export of poultry meat and other poultry products to the United States.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 20.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 2.

Estimated annual number of responses: 40.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 40 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established. Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation. People wanting to rent Fremont Caretaker's Cabin or Tucannon Guard Station would need to do so through the National Recreation Reservation Service, at http://www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777 when it becomes available.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

Federal Agency: Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Cooperative Development Grant.

Announcement Type: Initial announcement.

RCDGs are authorized by section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)). Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F. The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. Grant funds are provided for the establishment and operation of Centers that have the expertise or who can contract out for the expertise to assist individuals or entities in the startup, expansion or operational improvement of cooperative businesses. The program is administered through USDA Rural Development State Offices.

The definitions published at 7 CFR 4284.3 and 7 CFR 4284.504 are incorporated by reference.

Type of Award: Grant.

Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2008.

Approximate Total Funding: $4,400,000.

Approximate Number of Awards: 22

Approximate Average Award: $200,000.

Floor of Award Range: None.

Ceiling of Award Range: $200,000.

Anticipated Award Date: September 12, 2008.

Budget Period Length: 12 months.

Project Period Length: 12 months.

Grants may be made to nonprofit corporations and institutions of higher education. Grants may not be made to public bodies.

Matching funds are required. Applicants must verify in their applications that all matching funds are available for the time period of the grant. The matching fund requirement is 25 percent of the total project cost (5 percent in the case of 1994 Institutions). Unless provided by other authorizing legislation, other Federal grant funds cannot be used as matching funds. However, matching funds may include loan proceeds from Federal sources. Matching funds must be spent in advance or as a pro-rata portion of grant funds being expended. All of the matching funds must be provided by either the applicant or a third party in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. All of the matching funds must be spent on eligible expenses and must be from eligible sources. The Center must be able to document and verify the number of hours worked and the value associated with the in-kind contribution. Additionally, if the in-kind contributions are from board members for their time, travel, incidentals, etc., the Center must have established written policies explaining how these costs are normally reimbursed, including rates. Otherwise, the in-kind contributions will not be considered eligible expenses and may cause the application to be determined ineligible for funding. In-kind contributions provided by individuals, businesses, or cooperatives who are being assisted by the Center can not be provided for the benefit of their own projects as USDA Rural Development considers this to be a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Grant Period Eligibility: Applications should have a timeframe of no more than 365 days with the time period beginning no earlier than October 1, 2008 and no later than January 1, 2009. Projects must be completed within the 1-year timeframe. The Agency will not approve requests to extend the grant period.

Completeness Eligibility: Applications without sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible. Applications that are non-responsive to this notice will be considered ineligible.

Activity Eligibility: Applications must propose the development or continuation of the cooperative development center concept or they will not be considered for funding. Additionally, applications that focus assistance to only one cooperative will not be considered for funding. Applications requesting more than the maximum grant amount will not be considered for funding. Applications that have ineligible costs that equal more than 10 percent of the total project costs will be determined ineligible, and not be considered for funding. If an application has ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total project costs and is selected for funding, the applicant must remove all ineligible costs from the budget and replace them with eligible activities or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly.

The application package for applying on paper for this funding opportunity can be obtained at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/rcdg.htm . Alternatively, applicants may contact their USDA Rural Development State Office at (202) 720-4323 and press “1”. For electronic applications, applicants must visit http://www.grants.gov and follow the instructions.

Applications must be submitted on paper or electronically. An application guide may be viewed at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/rcdg.htm . It is recommended that applicants use the template provided on the Web site. The template can be filled out electronically and printed out for submission with the required forms for paper submission or it can be filled out electronically and submitted as an attachment through http://www.grants.gov .

The submission must include all pages of the application. It is recommended that the application be in black and white, not color. Those evaluating the application will only receive black and white images.

If the application is submitted electronically, the applicant must follow the instructions given at http://www.grants.gov . Applicants are advised to visit the site well in advance of the application deadline if they plan to apply electronically to ensure they have obtained the proper authentication and have sufficient computer resources to complete the application.

Applicants must complete and submit the following elements. The Agency will screen all applications for eligibility and to determine whether the application is complete and sufficiently responsive to the requirements set forth in this notice to allow for an informed review. Information submitted as part of the application will be protected to the extent permitted by law.

1. Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” The form must be completed, signed and submitted as part of the application package.

Please note that applicants are required to have a DUNS number to apply for a grant from USDA Rural Development. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. There is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access http://www.dnb.com/us/ or call 866-705-5711. For more information, see the RCDG Web site at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/rcdg.htm or contact the applicant's USDA Rural Development State Office at (202) 720-4323 and press “1”.

2. Form SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package.

3. Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package.

4. Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants. The Agency is required to make this survey available to all nonprofit applicants. Submitting this form is voluntary.

5. Title Page. The Title Page, not to exceed one page, should include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information.

6. Table of Contents. For ease of locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents (TOC) immediately following the Title Page. The TOC should include page numbers for each component of the application.

7. Executive Summary. A summary of the proposal, not to exceed two pages, must briefly describe the Center, including project goals and tasks to be accomplished, the amount requested, how the work will be performed (e.g., Center staff, consultants, or contractors) and the percentage of work that will be performed among the parties.

8. Eligibility. The applicant must describe, not to exceed two pages, how it meets the applicant, matching, grant period and activity eligibility requirements.

9. Proposal Narrative. The proposal narrative is limited to a total of 40 pages.

i. Project Title. The title of the proposed project must be brief, not to exceed 75 characters, yet describe the essentials of the project. If a title page was included under number 5 above, it is not necessary to include an additional title page under this section.

ii. Information Sheet. A separate one-page information sheet listing each of the evaluation criteria referenced in the RFP, followed by the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation contained in the proposal that address or support the criteria. If the evaluation criteria are listed on the Table of Contents and specifically and individually addressed in narrative form, then it is not necessary to include an information sheet under this section.

iii. Goals of the Project. The applicant must include the following statements in this section of the narrative to demonstrate that the Center is following these statutory requirements:

1. A statement that substantiates that the Center will effectively serve rural areas in the United States;

2. A statement that the primary objective of the Center will be to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development;

3. A description of the contributions that the proposed activities are likely to make to the improvement of the economic conditions of the rural areas for which the Center will provide services; and

4. A statement that the Center, in carrying out its activities, will seek, where appropriate, the advice, participation, expertise, and assistance of representatives of business, industry, educational institutions, the Federal government, and State and local governments.

iv. Work Plan. Please see section V. A. 8. for specific requirements on the work plan and budget. The work plan and budget should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion number 8. It is not necessary to include the work plan and budget under this section.

v. Performance Evaluation Criteria. The Agency has established annual performance measures to evaluate the RCDG program. Applicants must provide estimates on the following performance measures.

• Number of groups who are not legal entities assisted.

• Number of businesses that are not cooperatives assisted.

• Number of cooperatives assisted.

• Number of businesses incorporated that are not cooperatives.

• Number of cooperatives incorporated.

• Total number of jobs created as a result of assistance.

• Total number of jobs saved as a result of assistance.

• Number of jobs created for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

• Number of jobs saved for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

It is permissible to have a zero in a performance element. When calculating jobs created, estimates should be based upon actual jobs to be created by the Center as a result of the RCDG funding or actual jobs to be created by businesses or cooperatives as a result of assistance from the Center. When calculating jobs saved, estimates should be based only on actual jobs that would have been lost if the Center did not receive RCDG funding or actual jobs that would have been lost without assistance from the Center. If the application is selected for funding, the applicant will be required to report actual numbers for these performance elements on a semi-annual basis and in the final performance report. Additional information on post-award requirements can be found in section VI. Applicants may also suggest additional performance criteria in the event the proposal receives grant funding. The criteria are not binding on USDA, but should be specific, measurable performance criteria. The inclusion of additional performance criteria beyond the nine listed above is voluntary.

vi. Undertakings. The applicant must include the following statements in this section of the narrative and expressly undertake to do them.

1. Take all practicable steps to develop continuing sources of financial support for the Center, particularly from sources in the private sectors;

2. Make arrangements for the Center's activities to be monitored and evaluated; and

3. Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee in accordance with 7 CFR part 4284, subpart F.

vii. Delivery of Cooperative Development Assistance. Please see section V. A. 7. for specific requirements on delivery of cooperative development assistance. Delivery should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion number 7. It is not necessary to include discussion on delivery of cooperative development assistance under this section.

viii. Qualifications of Personnel. Please see section V. A. 9. for specific requirements on qualifications of personnel. Qualifications of personnel should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion number 9. It is not necessary to include discussion on qualifications of personnel under this section.

ix. Support and commitments. Please see section V. A. 10. for specific requirements on support and commitments. Support and commitments should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion number 10. It is not necessary to include discussion on support and commitments under this section.

x. Future Support. Please see section V. A. 11. for specific requirements on future support. Future support should be presented under proposal evaluation criterion number 11. It is not necessary to include discussion on future support under this section.

xi. Proposal Evaluation Criteria. Each of the evaluation criteria referenced in this funding announcement must be specifically and individually addressed in narrative form. Applications that do not address all of the proposal evaluation criteria will be considered ineligible. See Section V. A. for a description of the Proposal Evaluation Criteria.

10. Certification of Judgment Owed to the United States. Applicants must certify that the United States has not obtained a judgment against them. No grant funds shall be used to pay a judgment obtained by the United States. It is suggested that applicants use the following language for the certification. “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that the United States has not obtained a judgment against it and will not use grant funds to pay any judgments obtained by the United States.” A separate signature is not required.

11. Certification of Matching Funds. Applicants must certify that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that matching funds will be spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, not less than the required amount of matching funds will have been expended prior to submitting the request for reimbursement. Please note that this certification is a separate requirement from the Verification of Matching Funds requirement. Applicants should include a statement for this section that reads as follows: “[INSERT NAME OF APPLICANT] certifies that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that matching funds will be spent in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of the total project cost, at least 25 cents (5 cents for 1994 Institutions) of matching funds will have been expended prior to submitting the request for reimbursement.” A separate signature is not required.

12. Verification of Matching Funds. Applicants must provide documentation of all proposed matching funds, both cash and in-kind. Matching funds must be spent or donated for goods and services that are eligible expenditures for this grant program as well as be used for eligible purposes. The documentation must be included in Appendix A and will not count towards the 40-page limitation.

If matching funds are to be provided in cash, the following requirements must be met.

Applicant: The application must include a statement verifying (1) the amount of the cash and (2) the source of the cash. If the applicant is paying for goods and/or services as part of the matching funds contribution, the expenditure is considered a cash match, and should be verified as such.

Third-party: The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying (1) how much cash will be donated and (2) when it will be donated. Specific dates (month/date/year) corresponding to the proposed grant period or to the dates within the grant period when matching contributions will be made available, must be included in the letter.

If matching funds are to be provided by an in-kind donation, the following requirements must be met.

Applicant: The application must include a signed letter from the applicant or its authorized representative verifying (1) the goods and/or services to be donated (i.e., provide the details about the goods and/or services to be provided), (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated (i.e., specific dates (month/date/year) corresponding to the proposed grant period or to the dates within the grant period when matching contributions will be made available) and (3) the value of the goods and/or services.

Third-Party: The application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying (1) the goods and/or services to be donated (i.e., provide the details about the goods and/or services to be provided), (2) when the goods and/or services will be donated (i.e., specific dates (month/date/year) corresponding to the proposed grant period or to the dates within the grant period when matching contributions will be made available) and (3) the value of the goods and/or services.

Applicants should note that only goods or services for which no expenditure is made can be considered in-kind. Verification for in-kind contributions that are over-valued will not be accepted. The valuation process for in-kind funds does not need to be included in the application. However, the applicant must be able to demonstrate how the valuation was derived at the time of notification of tentative selection for the grant award. If the applicant cannot satisfactorily demonstrate how the valuation was determined, the grant award may be withdrawn or the amount of the grant may be reduced.

Verification for funds donated outside the proposed time period of the grant will not be accepted.

Examples of unacceptable matching funds are in-kind contributions from individuals, businesses, or cooperatives being assisted by the Center to benefit their own project, donations of fixed equipment and buildings, and costs related to the preparation of the RCDG application package.

Expected program income may not be used to fulfill the matching funds requirement at the time of application. However, if there are contracts in place at the time of application, they may be treated as cash match. If program income is earned during the time period of the grant, it is subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 3015, subpart F and 7 CFR part 3019.24 and any provisions in the Grant Agreement.

Application Deadline Date: April 8, 2008.

Explanation of Deadlines: Paper applications must be postmarked by the deadline date (see section IV.F for the address). Electronic applications must be received by http://www.grants.gov by the deadline date. If the application does not meet the deadline above, it will not be considered for funding. The applicant will be notified if the application does not meet the submission requirements. The applicant will also be notified by mail or by e-mail if the application is received on time.

Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental review of Federal programs, applies to this program. This EO requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many states have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. For a list of states that maintain an SPOC, please see the White House Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html. If an applicant's state has an SPOC, the applicant may submit a copy of the application directly for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to USDA Rural Development for consideration as part of the application. If the applicant's state has not established an SPOC, or the applicant does not want to submit a copy of the application, USDA Rural Development will submit the application to the SPOC or other appropriate agency or agencies.

Applicants are also encouraged to contact the USDA Rural Development State Office for assistance and questions on this process. The USDA Rural Development State Office can be reached at (202) 720-4323 and selecting option “1” or by viewing the following Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/.

Funding restrictions apply to both grant funds and matching funds. Grant funds may be used to pay up to 75 percent (95 percent where the grantee is a 1994 Institution) of the total project cost.

1. Grant funds and matching funds may be used for, but are not limited to, providing the following to individuals, cooperatives, small businesses and other similar entities in rural areas served by the Center:

i. Applied research, feasibility, environmental and other studies that may be useful for the purpose of cooperative development.

ii. Collection, interpretation and dissemination of principles, facts, technical knowledge, or other information for the purpose of cooperative development.

iii. Training and instruction for the purpose of cooperative development.

iv. Loans and grants for the purpose of cooperative development in accordance with this notice and applicable regulations.

v. Technical assistance, research services and advisory services for the purpose of cooperative development.

2. No funds made available under this solicitation shall be used for any of the following activities:

i. To duplicate current services or replace or substitute support previously provided. If the current service is inadequate, however, grant funds may be used to expand the level of effort or services beyond that which is currently being provided;

ii. To pay costs of preparing the application package for funding under this program;

iii. To pay costs of the project incurred prior to the date of grant approval;

iv. To fund political activities;

v. To pay for assistance to any private business enterprise that does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;

vi. To pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;

vii. To plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility, including a processing facility;

viii. To purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment, including laboratory equipment or processing machinery;

ix. To pay for the repair of privately owned vehicles;

x. To fund research and development;

xi. To pay costs of the project where a conflict of interest exists; or

xii. To fund any activities prohibited by 7 CFR parts 3015 or 3019.

A paper application for a grant must be submitted to Cooperative Programs, Attn: RCDG Program, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 3250, Room 4016-South, Washington, DC 20250-3250. The phone number that should be used for courier delivery is (202) 720-7558. Electronically submitted applications must apply using the following internet address: http://www.grants.gov. Applications may not be submitted by electronic mail, facsimile, or by hand-delivery. Each application submission must contain all required documents in one envelope, if by mail or courier delivery service.

All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Evaluators will base scores only on the information provided or cross-referenced in each individual evaluation criterion. The maximum amount of points available is 65.

1. Administrative capabilities. (0-7 points) The application will be evaluated to determine whether the subject Center has a track record of administering a Nationally-coordinated, regional or state-wide operated project. Centers that have capable financial systems and audit controls, personnel and program administration performance measures and clear rules of governance will receive more points than those not evidencing this capacity.

2. Technical assistance and other services. (0-7 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated expertise in providing technical assistance in rural areas.

3. Economic development. (0-7 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated ability to assist in the retention of businesses, facilitate the establishment of cooperatives and new cooperative approaches and generate employment opportunities that will improve the economic conditions of rural areas.

4. Linkages. (0-7 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated ability to create horizontal linkages among businesses within and among various sectors in rural areas of the United States and vertical linkages to domestic and international markets.

5. Commitment. (0-7 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's commitment to providing technical assistance and other services to underserved and economically distressed areas in rural areas of the United States.

6. Matching Funds. (0, 3 or 5 points) All applicants must demonstrate matching funds equal to at least 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) of total project costs. Applications exceeding these minimum commitment levels will receive more points. If the applicant provides eligible matching funds of 25 percent, 0 points will be awarded; 26 to 50 percent, 3 points will be awarded; or greater than 50 percent, 5 points will be awarded. If the applicant is a 1994 Institution and provides eligible matching funds of 5 percent, 0 points will be awarded; 6 to 20 percent, 3 points will be awarded; or greater than 20 percent, 5 points will be awarded.

7. Delivery. (0-5 points) The Agency will evaluate whether the Center has a track record of providing technical assistance in rural areas and accomplishing effective outcomes in cooperative development. The Center's potential for delivering effective cooperative development assistance, the expected effects of that assistance, the sustainability of cooperative organizations receiving the assistance, and the transferability of the Center's cooperative development strategy and focus to other States will also be assessed.

8. Work Plan/Budget. (0-5 points) The work plan will be reviewed for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. Clear, logical, realistic and efficient plans will result in a higher score. Budgets will be reviewed for completeness and the quality of non-Federal funding commitments. Applicants must discuss the specific tasks (whether it be by type of service or specific project) to be completed using grant and matching funds. The work plan should show how customers will be identified, key personnel to be involved, and the evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Matching funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for in the budget.

9. Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks. (0-5 points) The application will be evaluated to determine if the personnel expected to perform key center tasks have a track record of positive solutions for complex cooperative development or marketing problems, or a successful record of conducting accurate feasibility studies, business plans, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to Cooperative development center success. The applicant must also identify whether the personnel expected to perform tasks are full/part-time Center employees or contract personnel.

10. Local support. (0-5 points) Applications will be reviewed for previous and expected local support for the Center, plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area, and coordination with State and local institutions. Support documentation should include recognition of rural values that balance employment opportunities with environmental stewardship and other positive rural amenities. Centers that demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of the Center's intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations will receive more points than those not evidencing such support and formal intent. Support should be discussed directly within the response to this criterion. The applicant may submit a maximum of 10 letters of support or intent to coordinate with the application. These letters should be included in Appendix B of the application and will not count against the 40-page limit for the narrative.

11. Future support. (0-5 points) Applicants should describe their vision for Center operations in future years, including issues such as sources and uses of alternative funding; reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and the use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for that expertise. To the extent possible, applicants should document future funding sources that will help achieve long-term sustainability of the Center. Applications that demonstrate their vision for funding center operations for future years, including diversification of funding sources and building in-house technical assistance capacity, will receive more points for this criterion.

The Agency will screen all of the proposals to determine whether the application is eligible and sufficiently responsive to the requirements set forth in this notice to allow for an informed review.

The Agency will evaluate applications using a panel of qualified reviewers who will score the applications in accordance with the point allocation specified in this notice. Applications will be submitted to the Administrator in rank order, together with funding level recommendations.

Award Date: The announcement of award selections is expected to occur on or about September 12, 2008.

Successful applicants will receive a notification of tentative selection for funding from USDA Rural Development. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification by mail.

7 CFR parts 3015, 3019, and 4284 are applicable to this program. To view these regulations, please see the following internet address: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html.

The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

• Grant Agreement.

• Letter of Conditions.

• Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

• Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

• Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”

• Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

• Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”

• Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”

• RD Instruction 1940-Q, Exhibit A-1, “Certification for Contracts, Grants and Loans.”

Additional information on these requirements can be found at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/rcdg.htm.

Reporting Requirements: Grantees must provide USDA Rural Development with an original or electronic copy that includes all required signatures of the following reports. The reports should be submitted to the Agency contact listed on the Grant Agreement and Letter of Conditions. Failure to submit satisfactory reports on time may result in suspension or termination of the grant.

1. Form SF-269 or SF-269A. A “Financial Status Report” listing expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories, on a semi-annual basis. Reporting periods end each March 31 and September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the reporting period ends.

2. Semi-annual performance reports that compare accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal. Identify all tasks completed to date and provide documentation supporting the reported results. If the original schedule provided in the work plan is not being met, the report should discuss the problems or delays that may affect completion of the project. Objectives for the next reporting period should be listed. Compliance with any special conditions on the use of award funds should be discussed. The report should also include a summary at the end of the report with the following elements to assist in documenting the annual performance goals of the RCDG program for Congress.

• Number of groups who are not legal entities assisted.

• Number of businesses that are not cooperatives assisted.

• Number of cooperatives assisted.

• Number of businesses incorporated that are not cooperatives.

• Number of cooperatives incorporated.

• Total number of jobs created as a result of assistance.

• Total number of jobs saved as a result of assistance.

• Number of jobs created for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

• Number of jobs saved for the Center as a result of RCDG funding.

Reports are due as provided in paragraph 1 of this section. Supporting documentation must also be submitted for completed tasks. The supporting documentation for completed tasks includes, but is not limited to: Feasibility studies, marketing plans, business plans, publication quality success stories, applied research reports, copies of surveys conducted, articles of incorporation and bylaws and an accounting of how outreach, training, and other funds were expended.

3. Final project performance reports. These reports shall include all of the requirements of the semi-annual performance reports and responses to the following:

i. What have been the most challenging or unexpected aspects of this program?

ii. What advice would the Grantee give to other organizations planning a similar program? These should include strengths and limitations of the program. If the Grantee had the opportunity, what would they have done differently?

iii. If an innovative approach was used successfully, the Grantee should describe their program in detail so that other organizations might consider replication in their areas.

The final performance report is due within 90 days of the completion of the project.

For general questions about this announcement and for program technical assistance, applicants should contact their USDA Rural Development State Office at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg/Contacts.htm. The State Office can be reached by calling (202) 720-4323 and pressing “1”. If an applicant is unable to contact their State Office, please contact a nearby State Office or the USDA Rural Development National Office at 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 3250, Rm. 4016-South, Washington, DC 20250-3250, telephone: (202) 720-7558, e-mail: cpgrants@wdc.usda.gov.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (866) 632-9992 (voice) or (202) 401-0216 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Overview

Federal Agency: USDA Rural Business Cooperative Service.

Funding Opportunity Title: Small, Minority Producer Grant.

Announcement Type: Initial announcement.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.771.

This notice is issued pursuant to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2008 that authorizes not to exceed $1.463 million for cooperatives or associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to small, minority producers and whose governing board and/or membership is comprised of at least 75 percent minority. The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the program's administration to USDA Rural Development Cooperative Programs.

The primary objective of this grant program is to provide technical assistance to small, minority agricultural producers through eligible minority cooperatives and minority associations of cooperatives. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis. The maximum award amount per grant is $175,000.

Agency —Rural Business-Cooperative Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development or a successor agency.

Agricultural Commodity —An unprocessed product of farms, ranches, nurseries, and forests. Agricultural commodities include: livestock, poultry, and fish; fruits and vegetables; grains, such as wheat, barley, oats, rye, triticale, rice, corn, and sorghum; legumes, such as field beans and peas; animal feed and forage crops; seed crops; fiber crops, such as cotton; oil crops, such as safflower, sunflower, corn, and cottonseed; trees grown for lumber and wood products; nursery stock grown commercially; Christmas trees; ornamentals and cut flowers; and turf grown commercially for sod. Agricultural commodities do not include horses or animals raised as pets, such as cats, dogs, and ferrets.

Cooperative Programs —The office within USDA Rural Development, and its successor organization, that administers programs authorized by the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 (7 U.S.C. 451, et seq. ) and such other programs identified in USDA regulations.

Economic Development —The economic growth of an area as evidenced by increase in total income, employment opportunities, decreased out-migration of population, value of production, increased diversification of industry, higher labor force participation rates, increased duration of employment, higher wage levels, or gains in other measurements of economic activity, such as land values.

Feasibility Study —An analysis of the economic, market, technical, financial, and management feasibility of a proposed Project.

Minority —Individuals who have been subjected to racial, ethnic, gender prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. Minority groups are Women, African Americans, American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Hispanics, Asian and Pacific Islanders.

Minority Association of Cooperatives —An association of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to small, minority agricultural producers and where the governing board and/or membership is comprised of at least 75 percent minority.

Minority Cooperative —A farmer- or rancher-owned and -controlled business, organized and chartered as a cooperative, from which benefits are derived and distributed equitably on the basis of use by each of the farmer or rancher owners whose primary focus is to provide assistance to small, minority agricultural producers and where the governing board and/or membership is comprised of at least 75 percent minority.

Operating Cost —The day-to-day expenses of running a business; for example: utilities, rent, salaries, depreciation, product production costs, marketing and advertising, and other basic overhead items.

Project —Includes all activities to be funded by the Small Minority Agricultural Producer Grant and any matching funds.

Small, Minority Agricultural Producer —Minority persons or 100 percent minority-owned entities, including farmers, ranchers, loggers, agricultural harvesters, and fishermen, with gross annual sales of not more than $250,000 that engage in the production or harvesting of an agricultural commodity.

Rural and Rural Area —Includes all of the territory of a State that is not within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 50,000 or more and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census using the latest decennial census of the United States.

Rural Development —A mission area within USDA consisting of the Office of Under Secretary for Rural Development, Rural Development Business and Cooperative Programs, Rural Development Housing Programs, and Rural Development Utilities Programs and their successors.

State —Includes each of the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and, as may be determined by the Secretary to be feasible, appropriate and lawful, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau.

Technical Assistance —An advisory service performed for the benefit of a small, minority agricultural producer such as market research; product and/or service improvement; legal advice and assistance; feasibility study, business plan, and marketing plan development; and training. Technical assistance does not include the operating costs of a cooperative being assisted.

Type of Award: Grant.

Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2008.

Approximate Total Funding: $1.463 million.

Approximate Number of Awards: 8.

Approximate Average Award: $175,000.

Floor of Award Range: None.

Ceiling of Award Range: $175,000.

Anticipated Award Date: September 1, 2008.

Budget Period Length: 12 months.

Project Period Length: 12 months.

Applicants must be a minority cooperative or a minority association of cooperatives as defined in this Notice, and must be able to verify their legal structure as a cooperative in the State in which they are incorporated. Individuals are not eligible for this program.

No matching funds are required.

Use of Funds: Funds may only be used for technical assistance projects as defined in this notice.

Project Area Eligibility: The Project proposed must take place in a rural area.

Grant Period Eligibility: If awarded, funds must be expended in 1 year. Applications must have a time frame of no more than 365 days with the time period beginning no earlier than October 1, 2008 and ending no later than December 31, 2009. Projects must be completed within the 1-year time frame. The Agency will not approve requests to extend the grant period. Applications that request funds for a time period ending after December 31, 2009, will not be considered for funding.

Completeness Eligibility: Applications lacking sufficient information to determine eligibility and scoring will be considered ineligible. Applications that are non-responsive to this notice will be considered ineligible.

Multiple Grant Eligibility: An applicant may not submit more than one grant application in any one funding cycle.

Activity Eligibility: Applications must propose technical assistance, as defined in this notice, to benefit their members or other small minority agricultural producers who are not members, in order to be considered for funding. Applications having ineligible costs equaling more than 10 percent of total project costs will be determined ineligible and will not be considered for funding. Applications having ineligible costs of 10 percent or less of total project costs and which are selected for funding, must remove all ineligible costs from the budget and replace them with eligible activities or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. Applicants may not submit applications that duplicate current activities or activities paid for by other federally funded grant programs.

The application package for applying on paper for this funding opportunity can be obtained at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/smpg/smpg.htm. Alternatively, applicants may contact their USDA Rural Development State Office using the above list. For electronic applications, applicants must visit http://www.grants.gov and follow the instructions.

Applications must be submitted on paper or electronically. An application guide may be viewed at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/smpg/smpg.htm. It is recommended that applicants use the template provided on the Web site. The template can be filled out electronically and printed out for submission with the required forms for paper submission or it can be filled out electronically and submitted as an attachment through http://www.grants.gov.

If the application is submitted electronically, the applicant must follow the instructions given at the Internet address: http://www.grants.gov. Applicants are advised to visit the site well in advance of the application deadline if they plan to apply electronically to ensure that they have obtained the proper authentication and have sufficient computer resources to complete the application.

Applicants must complete and submit the following elements. The Agency will screen all applications for eligibility and to determine whether the application is complete and sufficiently responsive to the requirements set forth in this notice to allow for an informed review. Information submitted as part of the application will be protected to the extent permitted by law.

1. Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” The form must be completed, signed and submitted as part of the application package.

Please note that applicants are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. There is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access http://www.dnb.com/us/ or call 866-705-5711. For more information, see the SMPG Web site at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/smpg/smpg.htm or by contacting the applicant's USDA Rural Development State Office. In addition to the DUNS number, an applicant must provide a legal Employment Identification Number.

2. Form SF-424A, “Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed and submitted as part of the application package.

3. Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” This form must be completed, signed, and submitted as part of the application package.

4. Table of Contents. For ease of locating information, each application must contain a detailed Table of Contents (TOC) immediately following the SF-424B. The TOC must include page numbers for each component of the application. Pagination should begin immediately following the TOC.

5. Executive Summary: A summary of the proposal, not to exceed one page, must briefly describe the project, tasks to be completed and other relevant information that provides a general overview of the project.

6. Eligibility Discussion: A detailed discussion, not to exceed four pages, must describe how the applicant meets the following requirements.

(i) Applicant Eligibility: Applicants must be minority cooperatives or minority associations of cooperatives and must describe how they meet the definition of a “minority cooperative” or “minority association of cooperative” as defined in the Definitions section of this Notice. Applicant must also verify their incorporation as a cooperative or an association of cooperatives in the State they have applied by providing the State's Certificate of Good Standing, and their Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. The applicant must apply as only one type of applicant.

(ii) Use of Funds: The applicant must provide a detailed discussion on how the proposed project activities meet the definition of technical assistance.

(iii) Project Area: The applicant must provide specific information on where the projects are planned to be located and that the areas meet the definition of “rural area.”

(iv) Grant Period: The applicant must provide a time frame for the proposed project and discuss how the project will be completed within that time frame.

7. Budget/Work plan: The applicant must describe, in detail not to exceed four pages, the purpose of the grant, what type of assistance will be provided, and the total amount of funds needed to assist for each project. The budget must also present a breakdown of estimated costs associated with each task/activity for each project. The amount of grant funds requested will be adjusted if the applicant does not have justification for all costs.

8. Evaluation Criteria: Each of the evaluation criteria referenced in this notice must be addressed, specifically and individually on separate pages, in narrative form, not to exceed a total of two pages for each evaluation criteria. Failure to address each evaluation criteria will result in the application being determined ineligible.

Application Deadline Date: April 8, 2008.

Explanation of Deadlines: Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, or sent overnight by the deadline date (see Section IV.F. for the address). Electronic applications must be received by http://www.grants.gov by the deadline date. Courier applications must be delivered by the deadline date. If the Applicant's application does not meet the deadline, it will not be considered for funding. Applicants will be notified if their application did not meet the submission deadline.

Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, applies to this program. This EO requires that Federal agencies provide opportunities for consultation on proposed assistance with State and local governments. Many states have established a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to facilitate this consultation. A list of States that maintain an SPOC may be obtained at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/ spoc.html. If your State has an SPOC, you may submit your application directly for review. Any comments obtained through the SPOC must be provided to Rural Development for consideration as part of your application. If your State has not established an SPOC or you do not want to submit your application, Rural Development will submit your application to the SPOC or other appropriate agency or agencies.

You are also encouraged to contact Cooperative Programs at 202-720-7558 or cpgrants@wdc.usda.gov if you have questions about this process.

Grant funds must be used for technical assistance. No funds made available under this solicitation shall be used to:

1. Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility, including a processing facility;

2. Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment, including processing equipment;

3. Purchase vehicles, including boats;

4. Pay for the preparation of the grant application;

5. Pay expenses not directly related to the funded project;

6. Fund political or lobbying activities;

7. Fund any activities prohibited by 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019;

8. Fund architectural or engineering design work for a specific physical facility;

9. Fund any direct expenses for the production of any commodity or product to which value will be added, including seed, rootstock, labor for harvesting the crop, and delivery of the commodity to a processing facility;

10. Fund research and development;

11. Purchase land;

12. Duplicate current services or replace or substitute support previously provided;

13. Pay costs of the project incurred prior to the date of grant approval;

14. Pay for assistance to any private business enterprise, which does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;

15. Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;

16. Pay the operating costs of cooperative and/or association of cooperatives; or

17. Pay expenses for applicant employee training.

Applicants may submit their paper application for a grant to their Rural Development State Office listed under the Addresses section. Applicants may submit their application electronically at http://www.grants.gov. Applications may not be submitted by electronic mail, facsimile, or hand-delivery. Each application submission must contain all required documents in one envelope, if sent by mail or express delivery service.

All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated based upon the following criteria. Failure to address any one of the following criteria by the application deadline will result in the application being determined ineligible and the application will not be considered for funding. The total points possible for the criteria are 50. Any application receiving less than 30 total points will not be funded.

1. Technical Assistance. (0-15 points) The application will be evaluated to determine the applicant's ability to assess the needs of small minority producers, plan and conduct appropriate and effective assistance, and identify the expected outcomes of that assistance.

(i) 0 points will be awarded if the applicant does not substantively address this criterion.

(ii) 1-4 points will be awarded if the applicant demonstrates weakness in addressing this criterion.

(iii) 5-10 points will be awarded if the applicant demonstrates they meet part but not all of the criterion.

(iv) 15 points will be awarded if the applicant identifies specific needs of the minority producers to be assisted; clearly articulates a logical and detailed plan of assistance for addressing those needs; and discusses realistic outcomes of planned assistance.

2. Experience. (0-15 points) Points will be awarded based upon length of experience of identified staff or consultants in providing technical assistance, as defined in this notice. Applicants must describe the specific type of technical assistance experience for each identified staff member or consultant, as well as years of experience in providing that assistance. In addition, resumes for each individual staff member or consultant must be included as an attachment, listing their experience for the type of technical assistance proposed. The attachments will not count toward the maximum page total. The Agency will compare the described experience to the work plan to determine relevance of experience.

(i) 0 points will be awarded if the staff or consultants demonstrate no relevant experience in providing technical assistance;

(ii) 5 points will be awarded if at least one of the identified staff or consultants demonstrates more than two years of experience in providing relevant technical assistance;

(iii) 10 points will be awarded if at least one of the identified staff or consultants demonstrates 5 or more years of experience in providing relevant technical assistance; or

(iv) 15 points will be awarded if all of the identified staff or consultants demonstrate 5 or more years of experience in providing relevant technical assistance.

3. Commitment. (0-15 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's commitment to providing technical assistance to minority producers in rural areas. Points will be awarded based upon the number of agricultural, minority producers being assisted. Applicants must list the number and location of small, minority agricultural producers that will directly benefit from the assistance provided.

(i) 0 points will be awarded if the applicant does not substantively address this criterion.

(ii) 5 points will be awarded if the proposed project will benefit 1-10 producers;

(iii) 10 points will be awarded if the proposed project will benefit 11-50 producers; or

(iv) 15 points will be awarded if the proposed project will benefit more than 50 producers.

4. Local support. (0-5 points) Applications will be reviewed for local support for the technical assistance activities of the cooperative. Applicants that demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and other developmental organizations will receive more points than those not evidencing such support.

(i) 0 points will be awarded if the applicant does not substantively address this criterion.

(ii) 1 point will be awarded if the applicant provides or references 2-3 support letters that demonstrate substantive support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

(iii) 2 points will be awarded if the applicant provides or references 4-5 support letters that demonstrate substantive support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

(iv) 3 points will be awarded if the applicant provides or references 6-7 support letters that demonstrate substantive support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

(v) 4 points will be awarded if the applicant provides or references 8-9 support letters that demonstrate substantive support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

(vi) 5 points will be awarded if the applicant provides or references 10 support letters that demonstrate substantive support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.

The applicant may submit a maximum of 10 letters of support. These letters should be included as an attachment to the application and will not count against the maximum page total. Additional letters from industry groups, commodity groups, local and state government, and similar organizations should be referenced, but not included in the application package. When referencing these letters, provide the name of the organization, date of the letter, the nature of the support, and the name and title of the person signing the letter.

The Agency will screen all proposals to determine whether the application is eligible and sufficiently responsive to the requirements set forth in this notice to allow for an informed review. Applications will be screened for eligibility and scored by the State Offices, then submitted to the National Office for review and ranking. The National Office will review the scores based upon the point allocation specified in this notice. Applications will be funded in scoring rank order and will be submitted to the Administrator in rank order with funding level recommendations. The Administrator will break scoring ties based on Agency priorities.

Award Date: The announcement of award selections is expected to occur on or about September 1, 2008.

Successful applicants will receive a notification of tentative selection for funding from Rural Development. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and this notice before the grant award will receive final approval.

Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification, including appeal rights, by mail.

7 CFR parts 3015, 3019, and subparts A and F of part 7 CFR 4284 are applicable to grants made under this notice. These regulations may be obtained at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html.

The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

• Agency approved Grant Agreement.

• Letter of Conditions.

• Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

• Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

• Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”

• Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

• Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”

• Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”

Additional information on these requirements can be found at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/smpg/smpg.htm.

Fund Disbursement: The Agency will determine, based on 7 CFR Parts 3015, 3016 and 3019, as applicable, whether disbursement of a grant will be by advance or reimbursement. As needed, but not more frequently than once every 30 days, an original of SF-270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement,” may be submitted to Rural Development. Recipient's request for advance shall not be made in excess of reasonable outlays for the month covered.

Reporting Requirements: Grantees must provide Rural Development with an original or an electronic copy that includes all required signatures of the following reports. The reports should be submitted to the Agency contact listed on the Grant Agreement and Letter of Conditions. Failure to submit satisfactory reports on time may result in suspension or termination of the grant. Grantees will submit:

1. Form SF-269 or SF-269A. A “Financial Status Report,” listing expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories, on a semi-annual basis. Reporting periods end each March 31 and September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the reporting period ends.

2. Semi-annual performance reports comparing accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal, identifying all tasks completed to date and providing documentation supporting the reported results. If the original schedule provided in the work plan is not being met, the report should discuss the problems or delays that may affect completion of the Project. Objectives for the next reporting period should be listed. Compliance with any special condition on the use of award funds must be discussed. Reports are due as provided in paragraph (1) of this section. Supporting documentation must also be submitted for completed tasks. The supporting documentation for completed tasks includes, but is not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business plans, articles of incorporation, and bylaws as they relate to the assistance provided.

3. Final project performance reports comparing accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal, identifying all tasks completed, and providing documentation supporting the reported results. If the original schedule provided in the work plan was not met, the report must discuss the problems or delays that affected completion of the project. Compliance with any special condition on the use of award funds must be discussed. Supporting documentation for completed tasks must also be submitted. The supporting documentation for completed tasks includes, but is not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business plans, articles of incorporation, and bylaws as they relate to the assistance provided. The final performance report is due within 90 days of the completion of the project. The report must also include a summary at the end of the report with the number of small minority agricultural producers assisted to assist in documenting the annual performance goals of the SMPG program for Congress.

For general questions about this announcement and for program technical assistance, please contact the appropriate State Office as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, martial status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

On December 7 and December 14, 2007, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (72 FR 69181; 71114) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and 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 products and service to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service 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 and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

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 this notice for each service will be required to procure the services 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 services to the Government.

2. If approved, 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.

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

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

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 should not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and service 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 and services proposed for deletion from 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 and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

When CCDs were introduced prior to the 1950 Census, few alternatives were available for the provision of statistical data related to relatively stable, subcounty geographic units. Census tracts were defined in only a subset of metropolitan area counties. MCDs existed in all counties, but in some states, MCD boundaries changed frequently enough that they were not useful for comparing statistical data from one decade to another.

For much of the period from the 1950 Census through the 1980 Census, county subdivisions (MCDs and CCDs) provided the only subcounty unit of geography at which data users could obtain statistical data for complete coverage of counties nationwide. The introduction of block numbering areas (BNAs) in counties without census tracts for the 1990 Census offered an alternate subcounty entity for which data could be tabulated. For Census 2000, the Census Bureau introduced census tracts nationwide (in many counties, BNAs were simply relabeled as “census tracts”) and the greater dissemination of, and ability to analyze, data at the census tract level made CCDs less necessary as statistical reporting units.

The April 6, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 17324) notice requested comment on proposed criteria for CCDs. In addition, the Census Bureau sought comment regarding the continued identification and use of CCDs as statistical geographic areas for the tabulation, presentation, and analysis of statistical data. In raising the question of continued identification of CCDs, the Census Bureau sought to ascertain the extent to which data users still found CCDs to be useful geographic areas given that census tracts are defined nationwide, and that census tract-level statistical data are widely available and more easily manipulated using prevailing spreadsheet, database, and geographic information system software. The Census Bureau noted that it would consider eliminating CCDs as a census geographic area if commenters no longer found them to be useful for data presentation and analysis. If comments indicated continued relevance, the Census Bureau would retain CCDs.

The Census Bureau received 172 comments in response to the proposed criteria, all specifically in response to the issue of whether to retain or eliminate CCDs. Commenters represented a broad range of data users, including individual data users; local, state, and federal government agencies; nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations; and private sector organizations and companies.

The Census Bureau received 164 comments in favor of retaining CCDs, noting their continued relevance as geographic areas for data presentation and analysis. Of these, 154 comments related specifically to retaining the San Fernando Valley CCD in Los Angeles County, California. Of the other comments in favor of retaining CCDs, six were received from state departments of health, noting that data for CCDs are used for analysis and program implementation, particularly in less populated counties in which CCDs subdivide census tracts and, therefore, provide data for smaller geographic areas and populations.

Of the remaining eight comments, four were in response to a survey conducted in the San Fernando Valley, with three in favor of eliminating CCDs and one undecided. Two commenters (a national trade association and a nongovernmental policy research organization) favored elimination of CCDs, stating that as a result of nationwide availability of data for census tracts, they no longer analyzed data by CCD.

The Tennessee Office of Information Resources requested replacement of CCDs in Tennessee with county commissioner districts, commenting that the latter were more relevant to the ongoing planning and policy analysis needs of local and state government agencies. County commissioner districts in Tennessee are legal entities defined for the purpose of electing county commissioners, and are a type of legal, administrative MCD. They are redefined after each decennial census, and their boundaries generally remain stable and unchanged through the decade. When considering this request, the Census Bureau sought additional comment from data users in Tennessee, working through the Tennessee State Data Center (SDC) and its network of affiliates. Responses to the Tennessee SDC's request for comment generally favored adoption of county commissioner districts as the county subdivision type for use in tabulating and presenting Census Bureau data, and concurred with the Office of Information Resources request to replace CCDs with county commissioner districts.

In accepting Tennessee's request to switch from CCDs to county commissioner districts (a type of MCD), the Census Bureau also offers other CCD states the opportunity to replace CCDs with MCDs, provided the following conditions are met:

1. There is demonstrated support from a wide range of data users within the state for the switch from current CCDs to a legally existing county subdivision;

2. The type of MCD selected for adoption exists in all counties throughout the state and is well known or easily identifiable by data users; and

3. The type of MCD selected has relatively stable boundaries, with changes generally limited to updates or redistricting once following each census, but stable through the remainder of the decade.

The Census Bureau will consider requests from the other 21 CCD states to replace CCDs with a type of MCD, based on the conditions stated above. If the MCDs are to be used for the tabulation of data from the 2010 Census, requests must be received in writing by April 15, 2008, to provide the Census Bureau sufficient time to consult with data users in the state through the State Data Center and its network of affiliates, prepare geographic update materials, and process boundary submissions.

The changes made to the final criteria (from the proposed criteria) in “Section III, General principles and criteria for CCDs for the 2010 Census” are as follows:

1. Paragraph 1 in this section appeared in Section C, “CCD Criteria for the 2010 Census,” in the previous Federal Register notice (April 6, 2007; 72 FR 17324). We have moved it to the beginning of Section III in the final criteria because the wording applies to both the general principles and delineation criteria. We removed the reference to American Indian reservations and off-reservation trust lands because these areas are, by definition, within the United States.

2. Section A, “General principles,” paragraph 3, reworded several sentences to provide greater clarity regarding the relationship between CCDs and census tracts.

3. Section A, “General principles,” paragraph 4, added three sentences to clarify North Dakota's and Tennessee's requests to use MCDs rather than CCDs for tabulating data. We made this change to note Tennessee's recent request in response to the April 6, 2007, Federal Register (72 FR 17234). The reference to North Dakota's request for the 1970 Census was added to provide an example of a state that had shifted from CCDs to MCDs.

4. Section B, “CCD Criteria for the 2010 Census,” added the first paragraph, summarizing the criteria that follow in more detail.

5. Section B, “CCD Criteria for the 2010 Census,” criteria relating to community orientation, added the words “together form a cohesive community area” to provide greater clarity.

6. Section B, “CCD Criteria for the 2010 Census,” criteria relating to visible and/or stable boundaries, changed wording in the last sentence from “permits” to “requires” that CCDs follow state, county, and census tract boundaries. This change in wording is consistent with wording elsewhere in the criteria, with the stated intent of the CCD program, and with past practice. Additional wording changes were made to improve clarity.

7. Section B, “CCD Criteria for the 2010 Census,” criteria relating to census tract boundaries, removed the reference to the Puerto Rico Community Survey because CCDs are not defined in Puerto Rico. We also deleted the requirement that new CCDs must have a minimum population of 1,200 (the minimum threshold for a census tract) because population thresholds and requirements are not consistent with the general concept of a CCD.

8. Section B, “CCD Criteria for the 2010 Census,” criteria relating to name identification, we added a requirement that the name of an existing CCD may not be changed unless a compelling reason is provided. This addition is intended to promote consistency and continuity from one census to another and avoid needless changes that may result in confusion among data users.

The criteria outlined herein apply to the United States, 3 Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas. 4 In accordance with the final criteria, the Census Bureau may modify and, if necessary, reject any proposals for CCDs that do not meet the established criteria. In addition, the Census Bureau reserves the right to modify the boundaries and attributes of CCDs as required to maintain established geographic relationships before the final tabulation geography is set for the 2010 Census.

1. The primary goal of the CCD program is to establish and maintain a set of subcounty units that have stable boundaries and recognizable names. The boundaries of CCDs usually coincide with visible features or stable, significant legal boundaries, such as the boundary of an American Indian reservation, federally managed land, or conjoint incorporated places. CCDs have no legal status as statistical geographic entities and are defined only for the tabulation and presentation of statistical data.

2. A CCD usually represents a single contiguous area consisting of one or more communities, trading centers, or, in some instances, major land uses that are relatively compact in shape.

3. A CCD shall have a relationship to existing census tracts, either encompassing one or more census tracts or having two or more CCDs nest within a single census tract. The boundaries of a CCD, or combination of nested CCDs, align with census tract boundaries. Note that a county with a population less than the optimum population for a census tract (less than 4,000 people) may contain more CCDs than census tracts. For example, McCone County, Montana, which has a 2006 estimated population of 1,760, contains only one census tract, but is divided into two CCDs.

4. Since the 1950s, the Census Bureau has worked with state and local officials to replace MCDs with CCDs for the collection, presentation, and analysis of Census Bureau data, particularly in states in which MCDs do not provide governmental services and functions, and in which MCD boundaries tend to change between decennial censuses. As of Census 2000, CCDs were defined in 22 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. North Dakota adopted CCDs for use in tabulating and presenting data from the 1970 Census. Following the 1970 Census, North Dakota requested that the Census Bureau again use MCDs to tabulate and present statistical data. For the 2010 Census, Tennessee has requested that the Census Bureau replace its CCDs with county commissioner districts, a type of legal, administrative MCD.

CCDs must (1) have community orientation, (2) have visible and/or stable boundaries, (3) conform to census tract boundaries, and (4) have recognizable names.

Each CCD should center on one or more places and encompass additional surrounding territory that together form a cohesive community area. The definition of community should take into account factors such as production, marketing, consumption, and the integrating factor of local institutions.

The locality on which a CCD is centered usually is an incorporated place or an unincorporated community, which might be identified as a census designated place. In some cases, the CCD may center on a major area of significantly different topography, land use, or ownership, such as a large military installation or American Indian reservation. A CCD should always comprise a reasonably compact, continuous land area, generally with road access to all areas within the CCD.

To make the location of CCD boundaries less ambiguous, the boundaries should follow, wherever possible, visible and identifiable features. The use of visible features makes it easier to locate and identify CCD boundaries over time, as the locations of most visible features in the landscape change infrequently, making data collection easier and more reliable, while reducing the possibility for data allocation errors. The Census Bureau requires that CCDs follow state and county boundaries, conform to census tract boundaries, and allows CCDs to follow the boundaries of federally recognized American Indian reservations, and federal-, state-, or locally-managed land.

The following features are acceptable:

a. County boundaries (always a CCD boundary);

b. Census tract boundaries, which usually follow visible, perennial, natural, and cultural features, such as roads, rivers, canals, railroads, or above-ground, high-tension power lines;

c. Legally defined, federally recognized American Indian reservation boundaries;

d. The boundaries of federal-, state-, or locally-managed land, such as National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, other types of large parks or forests, airports, marine ports, prisons, military installations, or other facilities; and

e. Conjoint city limits (in certain situations, such as city limits that change infrequently).

f. When the above types of features are not available for use as CCD boundaries, the Census Bureau may, at its discretion, approve other nonstandard, visible features, such as ridge lines, above-ground pipelines, streams, or fence lines. The Census Bureau may also accept, on a case-by-case basis, the boundaries of selected nonstandard and potentially nonvisible features, such as the boundaries of cemeteries, golf courses, glaciers, or the straight-line extensions of visible features and other lines-of-sight.

Whenever possible, a CCD should encompass one or more contiguous census tracts, or multiple CCDs should constitute a single census tract. Therefore, CCD boundaries should be consistent with census tract boundaries. Population size is not as important a consideration with CCDs as it is with census tracts. Historically, CCDs have ranged from a few hundred people (in selected situations) to more than one million. However, data quality and availability may be factors that local governments and planners should consider in defining statistical geographic areas. As a general rule, period estimates of demographic characteristics of small population areas from the ACS will be subject to higher variances than comparable period estimates for areas with larger populations. In addition, the Census Bureau's disclosure rules may have the effect of restricting the availability and amount of data for areas with small populations.

• The names of existing CCDs shall not be changed unless a compelling reason is provided, such as when the name from which the CCD was derived has changed, as in the case of Bainbridge Island, Washington, when the name of the city (Winslow) changed.

• A new CCD usually is named after the largest population center or historically central place within it (e.g., Taos, Chimayo, or Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico).

• Where a CCD contains multiple centers with relatively equal importance, a CCD name may represent the two or three centers (e.g., Mount Pleasant-Moroni, Utah).

• A CCD may be named after the American Indian Reservation (e.g., Hualapai, Arizona or Nez Perce, Idaho) or a prominent land use area (e.g., Federal Reservation, Washington or Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming) in which it is partially or wholly located.

• A CCD may be named after a prominent physical feature (e.g., Mount Rainier, Washington) or a distinctive region within the county (e.g., Death Valley, California; Everglades and Lower Keys, Florida).

• If there is no clear cultural focus or topographic name that can be applied, a CCD name shall consist of the county name and a compass direction to indicate the portion of the county in the CCD or a place name and a compass direction to give the CCD location relative to the place. The directional indicator precedes a county name (e.g., Northeast Cobb, Georgia). If a place name is used, the directional indicator follows it (e.g., Del Rio Northwest, Texas).

In all cases, the objective is to clearly identify the extent of the CCD by means of an area name since CCD names always should be meaningful to data users. Any name used as a CCD name must also be recognized by the Board on Geographic Names for federal use and appear in the Geographic Names Information System maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey. This includes any individual names combined to make a hyphenated CCD name.

American Indian reservation —A federally recognized American Indian land area with boundaries established by final treaty, statute, executive order, and/or court order, and over which a federally recognized American Indian tribal government has governmental authority. Along with reservations, designations such as colonies, communities, pueblos, rancherias, and reserves apply to American Indian reservations.

Block group —A statistical subdivision of a census tract consisting of all census blocks whose numbers begin with the same digit in a census tract. A block group is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau normally tabulates sample data.

Census block —A geographic area bounded by visible and/or nonvisible features in the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing database. A block is the smallest geographic entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates decennial census data.

Census designated place —A statistical geographic entity with a concentration of population, housing, and commercial structures that is identifiable by name, but is not within an incorporated place.

Census tract —A small, relatively permanent statistical geographic division of a county defined for the tabulation and publication of Census Bureau data. The primary goal of the census tract program is to provide a set of nationally consistent small, statistical geographic units, with stable boundaries that facilitate analysis of data across time.

Conjoint —A description of a boundary shared by two adjacent geographic areas.

Contiguous —A description of a geographic entity having an uninterrupted outer boundary, such that it forms a single, connected piece of territory. Noncontiguous areas form separate, disconnected pieces.

Federally managed land —Territory that is federally owned and/or administered by an agency of the U.S. federal government, such as the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, or Department of Defense.

Incorporated place —A type of governmental unit, incorporated under state law as a city, town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), borough (except in Alaska and New York), or village, generally to provide specific governmental services for a concentration of people within legally prescribed boundaries.

Minor civil division —The primary governmental or administrative division of a county in 28 states, Puerto Rico, and the Island Areas having legal boundaries, names, and descriptions. MCDs represent many different types of legal entities with a wide variety of characteristics, powers, and functions depending on the state and type of MCD. In some states, some or all of the incorporated places also constitute MCDs.

Nonvisible feature —A map feature that is not visible on the ground, such as a city or county boundary through space, a property line running through space, a short line-of-sight extension of a road to another visible feature, or a point-to-point line of sight.

Visible feature —A map feature that can be seen on the ground, such as a road, railroad track, major above-ground transmission line or pipeline, river or stream, shoreline, fence, sharply defined mountain ridge, or cliff. A nonstandard visible feature is a feature that may not be clearly defined on the ground (such as a ridge), may be seasonal (such as an intermittent stream), or may be relatively impermanent (such as a fence). The Census Bureau generally requests verification that nonstandard features pose no problem in their location during fieldwork by Census Bureau staff.

This notice has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.

This program notice does not represent a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35.

On November 8, 2002, the Department issued antidumping duty orders on sulfanilic acid from Hungary and Portugal (67 FR 68100) and a countervailing duty order on sulfanilic acid from Hungary (67 FR 68101). On October 1, 2007, the Department initiated sunset reviews of these orders. See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews , 72 FR 55742 (October 1, 2007).

On October 12, 2007, and October 31, 2007, we received notices of intent to participate and substantive responses, respectively, in these sunset reviews from a domestic interested party. Based on this information, on October 23, 2007, we informed the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that there was domestic interest in continuation of these orders. Also, on November 21, 2007, we informed the ITC that we did not receive adequate substantive responses from any respondent parties and, as a result, we would be conducting expedited sunset reviews of these orders.

On January 28, 2008, we received a letter from the domestic interested party that it was withdrawing its notices of intent to participate in these sunset reviews and that it was no longer interested in continuation of these orders. In addition, on January 29, 2008, the domestic interested party filed a letter withdrawing its substantive response from the records of these sunset reviews. Because the Department has not expended substantial resources in conducting these expedited sunset reviews, we are accepting the domestic interested party's withdrawal of its notices of intent to participate and substantive responses. Therefore, the Department determines that there is no domestic participation or adequate substantive responses from a domestic interested party.

Imports covered by this order are all grades of sulfanilic acid (“sulfanilic acid” or “subject merchandise”), which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid, and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.

Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline and sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powers.

Technical sulfanilic acid, currently classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also currently classifiable under 2921.42.22 of the HTSUS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.

Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), currently classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular, or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party files a notice of intent to participate, the Department shall, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, issue a final determination revoking the order. None of the respondent interested parties responded to the notices of initiation. Further, because the domestic interested party has withdrawn its notices of intent to participate and its substantive responses in these sunset reviews, the Department finds that no domestic interested part is participating in these sunset reviews. 1 Therefore, consistent with 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(i) and section 751(c)(3) of the Act, we are revoking these antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The effective date of revocation is November 8, 2007, the fifth anniversary of the date of the Department published these antidumping duty orders and the countervailing duty order. See 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i).

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of the merchandise subject to this order entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after November 8, 2007. Entries of subject merchandise prior to the effective date of revocation will continue to be subject to suspension of liquidation and antidumping and countervailing duty deposit requirements. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of these orders and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

These five-year (sunset) reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the Federal Funding Opportunity announcement for each of the programs listed in this omnibus notice. These Federal Funding Opportunities are available at http://www.grants.gov .

The list of grant opportunities under NOAA Project Competitions (below) describe the basic information and requirements for the competitive grant/cooperative agreement programs offered by NOAA. These programs are open to anyone who meets the eligibility criteria specified under each grant. To be considered for an award in a competitive grant/cooperative agreement program, eligible applicants must submit a complete and responsive application to the appropriate address by the deadline specified in this notice. An award is made upon conclusion of the evaluation and selection process for the respective program.

Coastal areas are among the most developed in the Nation. More than half the population lives on less than one-fifth of the land in the contiguous United States. Furthermore, employment in near shore areas is growing three times faster than population. Coastal and marine waters support over 28 million jobs and provide a tourism destination for nearly 90 million Americans a year. The value of the ocean economy to the United States is over $115 billion. The value added annually to the national economy by the commercial and recreational fishing industry alone is over $48 billion. U.S. aquaculture sales total almost $1 billion annually. With its Exclusive Economic Zone of 3.4 million square miles, the United States manages the largest marine territory of any nation in the world.

Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:

1. Healthy and productive coastal and marine ecosystems that benefit society

2. A well-informed public that acts as a steward of coastal and marine ecosystems

1. 2009 Mid-Atlantic Research Set-Aside Program

2. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund

Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, wildfires, and other severe weather events cause $11 billion in damages each year in the United States. Weather is directly linked to public health and safety, and nearly one-third of the U.S. economy (about $3 trillion) is sensitive to weather and climate. With so much at stake, NOAA's role in understanding, observing, forecasting, and warning of environmental events is expanding. With our partners, we seek to provide decision makers with key observations, analyses, predictions, and warnings for a range of weather and water conditions, including those related to water supply, air quality, space weather, and wildfires. Businesses, governments, and nongovernmental organizations are getting more sophisticated about how to use this weather and water information to improve operational efficiencies, to manage environmental resources, and to create a better quality of life. On average, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other severe weather events cause $11 billion in damages per year. Weather, including space weather, is directly linked to public safety and about one-third of the U.S. economy (about $3 trillion) is weather sensitive. With so much at stake, NOAA's role in observing, forecasting, and warning of environmental events is expanding, while economic sectors and its public are becoming increasingly sophisticated at using NOAA's weather, air quality, and water information to improve their operational efficiencies and their management of environmental resources, and quality of life.

Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:

1. Reduced loss of life, injury, and damage to the economy

2. Better, quicker, and more valuable weather and water information to support improved decisions

3. Increased customer satisfaction with weather and water information and services

1. Remote Community Alert Systems Program

Climate shapes the environment, natural resources, economies, and social systems that people depend upon worldwide. While humanity has learned to contend with some aspects of climate's natural variability, major climatic events, combined with the stresses of population growth, economic growth, public health concerns, and land-use practices, can impose serious consequences on society. The 1997-98 El Nino, for example, had a $25 billion impact on the U.S. economy-property losses were $2.6 billion and crop losses approached $2 billion. Long-term drought leads to increased and competing demands for fresh water with related effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems, agricultural productivity, and even the spread of infectious diseases. Decisions about mitigating climate change also can alter economic and social structures on a global scale. We can deliver reliable climate information in useful ways to help minimize risks and maximize opportunities for decisions in agriculture, public policy, natural resources, water and energy use, and public health. We continue to move toward developing a seamless suite of weather and climate products. The Climate Goal addresses predictions on time scales of up to decades or longer.

Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:

1. A predictive understanding of the global climate system on time scales of weeks to decades with quantified uncertainties sufficient for making informed and reasoned decisions

2. Climate-sensitive sectors and the climate-literate public effectively incorporating NOAA's climate products into their plans and decisions

No Programs are currently soliciting applications for this mission goal.

Safe and efficient transportation systems are crucial to the U.S. economy. The U.S. marine transportation system ships over 95 percent of the tonnage and more than 20 percent by value of foreign trade through U.S. ports, including 48 percent of the oil needed to meet America's energy demands. At least $4 billion is lost annually due to economic inefficiencies resulting from weatherrelated air-traffic delays. Improved surface weather forecasts and specific user warnings would reduce the 7,000 weather related fatalities and 800,000 injuries that occur annually from crashes on roads and highways. The injuries, loss of life, and property damage from weather-related crashes cost an average of $42 billion annually. We provide information, services, and products for transportation safety and for increased commerce on roads, rails, and waterways. We will improve the accuracy of our information for marine, aviation, and surface weather forecasts, the availability of accurate and advanced electronic navigational charts, and the delivery of real-time oceanographic information. We seek to provide consistent, accurate, and timely positioning information that is critical for air, sea, and surface transportation. We will respond to hazardous material spills and provide search and rescue routinely to save lives and money and to protect the coastal environment. We will work with port and coastal communities and with Federal and state partners to ensure that port operations and development proceed efficiently and in an environmentally sound manner. We will work with the Federal Aviation Administration and the private sector to reduce the negative impacts of weather on aviation without compromising safety. Because of increased interest by the public and private sectors, we also will expand weather information for marine and surface transportation to enhance safety and efficiency.

Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:

1. Safe, secure, efficient, and seamless movement of goods and people in the U.S. transportation system

2. Environmentally sound development and use of the U.S. transportation system.

No programs are currently soliciting applications for this mission goal.

Strong, effective, and efficient support activities are necessary for us to achieve our Mission Goals. Our facilities, ships, aircraft, environmental satellites, data processing systems, computing and communication systems, and our approach to management provide the foundation of support for all of our programs. This critical foundation must adapt to evolving mission needs and, therefore, is an integral part of our strategic planning. It also must support U.S. homeland security by maintaining continuity of operations and by providing NOAA services, such as civil alert relays through NOAA Weather Radio and air dispersion forecasts, in response to national emergencies. NOAA ships, aircraft, and environmental satellites are the backbone of the global Earth observing system and provide many critical mission support services. To keep this capability strong and current with our Mission Goals, we will ensure that NOAA has adequate access to safe and efficient ships and aircraft through the use of both NOAA platforms and those of other agency, academic, and commercial partners. We will work with academia and partners in the public and private sectors to ensure that future satellite systems are designed, developed, and operated with the latest technology. Leadership development and program support are essential for achieving our Mission Goals. We must also commit to organizational excellence through management and leadership across a “corporate” NOAA. We must continue our commitment to valuing NOAA's diverse workforce, including effective workforce planning strategies designed to attract, retain and develop competencies at all levels of our workforce. Through the use of business process re-engineering, we will strive for state-of-the-art, value-added financial and administrative processes. NOAA will ensure state-of-the-art and secure information technology and systems. By developing long-range, comprehensive facility planning processes, NOAA will be able to ensure right-sized, cost-effective, and safe facilities

Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:

1. A dynamic workforce with competencies that support NOAA's mission today and in the future.

No programs are currently soliciting applictions for this mission goal.

In this notice, NOAA announces that 3 programs are making funds available for financial assistance awards. Each entry for the following grant opportunities provides: a description of the program, funding availability, statutory authority, catalog of federal domestic assistance (CFDA) number, application deadline, address for submitting proposals, information contacts, eligibility requirements, cost sharing requirements, and intergovernmental review under Executive Order 12372. Interested applicants should consult the July 2, 2007 Federal Register Notice entitled “Availability of Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2008” (72 FR 36244) notice for the selection criteria, evaluation criteria, and other requirements for submitting an application.

In addition, NOAA publishes this notice to change the funding years associated with awards for the solicitation “FY 2008 Implementation of Regional Integrated Ocean Observing Systems” announced in the Federal Register on July 2, 2007 (72 FR 36263) and amended on November 15, 2007 (72 FR 64047). Total anticipated funding for all awards is approximately $25,000,000 and is subject to the availability of FY 2008 and/or FY 2009 appropriations. The previous announcement indicated that awards were subject to the availability of FY 2008 appropriations only, however, this amendment changes this process to allow FY 2008 and/or FY 2009 appropriations to be used. This notice applies to all applicants who have previously submitted a full proposal under this announcement. All other requirements for this solicitation remain the same.

Summary Description: NMFS announces that, for fishing year 2009 (January 1-December 31, 2009), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) may set aside up to 3 percent of the total allowable landings (TAL) in certain Mid-Atlantic fisheries to be used for research endeavors under a research set-aside (RSA) program. The RSA program provides a mechanism to fund research and compensate vessel owners through the sale of fish harvested under the research quota. Vessels participating in an approved research project may be authorized by the Northeast Regional Administrator, NMFS, to harvest and land fish in excess of any imposed trip limit or during fishery closures. Landings from such trips are sold to generate funds that help defray the costs associated with the approved research projects. No Federal funds are provided for research under this notification. NMFS is soliciting proposals for research activities concerning the summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, Loligo squid, Illex squid, Atlantic mackerel, butterfish, Atlantic bluefish, and tilefish fisheries. NMFS and the Council will give priority to funding proposals addressing the research needs as follows: Loligo Squid and Butterfish Interactions: Mesh selectivity study of butterfish and secondarily for other species caught in Loligo nets during winter and summer/early fall; Test gear modifications in the Loligo squid fishery to reduce bycatch of butterfish and other species. Illex Squid: Determine size and age-at-maturity and growth parameters for Illex squid. Summer Flounder: Define distinctions between regulatory discards and bycatch attributed to gear, including mesh selectivity and/or overall gear design in the summer flounder fishery; Evaluate mortality of large fish released in the summer flounder offshore trawl fishery; Evaluate size and bag limits in the recreational fishery for summer flounder. Black Sea Bass: Estimate black sea bass mortality when left in pots (moderate priority); Develop indices for black sea bass recruitment (proof of concept); Verify age structure of black sea bass. Scup: Estimate the components of scup total annual mortality (natural, commercial landings, recreational landings, commercial discards, & recreational discards); Develop indices for scup recruitment (proof of concept). Bluefish: Develop bluefish index surveys (proof of concept).

Funding Availability: No Federal funds are provided for research under this notification, this program offers the opportunity to fish and to sell the catch to generate income. The Federal Government may issue an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) or Letter of Acknowledgment (LOA), as applicable, which may provide special fishing privileges in response to research proposals selected under this program. Funds generated from the RSA landings shall be used to cover the cost of the research activities, including vessel costs, and to compensate boats for expenses incurred during the collection of the set-aside species. For example, the funds may be used to pay for gear modifications, monitoring equipment, additional provisions (e.g., fuel, ice, food for scientists), or the salaries of research personnel. The Federal Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the researcher or vesse lowner. Any additional funds, generated through the sale of fish harvested under the research quota, above the cost of the research activities shall be retained by the vessel owner as compensation for the use of his/her vessel. In the past, two to five awards have been issued per year. During the 2007 fishing year, four awards were approved distributing a total of 2,218,146 lbs of TAL. The Council, in consultation with the Commission, will incorporate the level of RSA (amounts or percentages) for each of the set-aside species for the 2009 fishing year into the Council's recommendations for annual quota specifications. NMFS will consider the recommended level of RSA as part of the associated rulemaking process. The actual level of RSA quota available to applicants for the 2009 fishing year will depend on the TAL level specified by the Council at its quota-setting meetings in June and August 2008, and the percentage (0 to 3 percent) of the TAL recommended by the Council and approved by NMFS as the level of RSA available for 2009. To help researchers develop proposals for the 2009 fishing year, the examples below provide some guidance on the general magnitude of RSA and estimated values that a researcher might expect to be available for fishing year 2009. The examples are based on proposed RSA levels available and the actual allocated RSA amounts for these fisheries for the 2008 fishing year. The examples are intended only as a guide to be used when developing research proposals for the 2009 fishing year; it does not necessarily reflect the actual RSA quota that will be allocated for fishing year 2009. Based on Council recommendations, NMFS may choose to adopt less than 3 percent of TAL as a set-aside, or decide not to adopt any set-aside for a given fishery. The estimated values of the set-aside allocations will vary depending on market considerations prevailing at the time the research trips are conducted. Examples of RSA amounts based on 2008 proposed FMP Specifications in the following format is as follows: Allocation Species/Amount Available (lbs)/2008 RSA Amount (lbs)/2008 RSA Estimated Value, Summer Flounder/$349,200/233,192/$478,044, Scup/220,200/214,000/$196,880, Black Sea Bass/243,000/85,790,$211,901, Loligo Squid/1,124,356/50,000/$39,500, Illex Squid/None requested, Atlantic Mackerel/None requested, Butterfish/None requested, Bluefish/743,965/50,000/$18,000, Tilefish/None requested. The amount available was based 3 percent TAC in proposed FMP specifications.

Statutory Authority: Statutory authority for this program is provided under sections 303(b)(11), 402(e), and 404(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(11), 16 U.S.C. 1881a(e), and 16 U.S.C. 1881(c), respectively. Statutory authority for entering into cooperative agreements and other financial agreements with nonprofit organizations is found at 15 U.S.C. 1540. The award of a set-aside from the TAL of selected species resulted from the approval of Framework 1 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Summer Flounder, Scrup, and Black Sea Bass; and Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plans (FMP); and the RSA provisions of the Tilefish FMP. Framework 1 established a procedure through which RSA amounts are set annually as part of the Council quota-setting process (66 FR 42156, August 10, 2001), and codified in regulations at 50 CFR 648.21(g).

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 11.454, Unallied Management Projects

Application Deadline: Applications must be received on or before 5 p.m. EST on March 24, 2008.

Address for Submitting Proposals: To apply for this NOAA Federal funding opportunity, please submit applications to http://www.grants.gov and use the following funding opportunity number NMFS-NEFSC-2009-2001252. Applicants who do not have Internet access may submit their application to Cheryl A. Corbett, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, or by phone at 508-495-2070, or fax at 508-495-2004, or via e-mail at cheryl.corbett@noaa.gov .

Information Contacts: Information may be obtained from Clay Heaton, Fishery Management Specialist, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, by phone 302-674-2331 ext. 13, or via email at cheaton@mafmc.org ; or Cheryl A. Corbett, Cooperative Programs Specialist, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, or by phone at 508-495-2070, or fax at 508-495-2004, or via e-mail at cheryl.corbett@noaa.gov .

Eligibility: Eligible applicants include institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, individuals, and state, local, and Native American tribal governments. Federal agencies and institutions are not eligible to receive Federal assistance under this notice. Additionally, employees of any Federal agency or Regional Fishery Management Council are ineligible to submit an application under this program. However, Council members who are not Federal employees may submit an application. DOC/NOAA supports cultural and gender diversity and encourages women and minority individuals and groups to submit applications to the RSA program. In addition, DOC/NOAA is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that work in underserved areas. DOC/NOAA encourages proposals involving any of the above institutions. DOC/NOAA encourages applications from members of the fishing community and applications that involve fishing community cooperation and participation.

Cost Sharing Requirements: No cost sharing is required under this program.

Intergovernmental Review: Applicants will need to determine if their state participates in the intergovernmental review processs. This information can be found at the following website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html . This information will assist applicants in providing either a Yes or No response to Item 16 of the Application Form, SF-424, entitled “Application for Federal Assistance.”

Summary Description: NOAA announces the availability of Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds (PCSRF), as authorized in the Northern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers Restoration and Enhancement Fund and Southern Boundary Restoration and Enhancement Fund (16 U.S.C. 3645 et seq. ), to support the restoration and conservation of Pacific salmon and steelhead populations and their habitat. The program provides funding to the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California for salmon habitat restoration, salmon stock enhancement, sustainable salmon fisheries and salmon research. It also provides funding to the Pacific Coastal tribes and the Columbia River tribes as authorized in 16 U.S.C. 3645(d)(2)(B) for salmon habitat restoration, salmon stock enhancement, salmon research and supplementation activities.

Funding Availability: Up to $67,000,000 may be available in fiscal year (FY) 2008 for projects as authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3645 (d)(2). There are no restrictions on minimum funding request, but there is a limit of $25,000,000 on a maximum amount requested by any recipient. Award periods may be up to a maximum of 5 years. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon FY 2008 Congressional appropriations.

Statutory Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3645 (d)(2)

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 11.438, Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery - Pacific Salmon Treaty Program

Application Deadline: Applications should be submitted via www.grants.gov and must be received no later than 11:59 pm PST on March 24, 2008. No facsimile or electronic mail applications will be accepted. Paper applications must be postmarked by March 24, 2008. Any application transmitted or postmarked, as the case may be, after the deadline will be considered non-responsive and will not be considered for funding in this competition.

Address for Submitting Proposals: If an applicant does not have internet access, applications can be submitted to the following address: Nicolle Hill, NMFS Northwest Region Building #1, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115. NMFS' Internet website at www.nwr.noaa.gov contains additional information on PCSRF.

Information Contacts: For further information on PCSRF, please contact Barry Thom, NMFS Northwest Region Deputy Regional Administrator, at (503) 231-6266. Questions regarding this announcement should be directed to Nicolle Hill, NMFS Northwest Region PCSRF Federal Program Officer, at (206) 526-4358 or Nicolle.Hill@noaa.gov .

Eligibility: Eligible state applicants are the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. Eligible tribal applicants are any federally recognized Pacific Coastal or Columbia River tribes in Washington, Oregon, California or Idaho.

Cost Sharing Requirements: Applicants are required to provide 33 percent of received Federal funds. Indian tribes are exempt from any cost share requirement.

Intergovernmental Review: Applications under this program from state or local governments are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Summary Description: The Remote Community Alert Systems Program represents an NOAA/NWS effort to provide for outdoor alerting technologies in remote communities effectively underserved by commercial mobile service for the purpose of enabling residents of those communities to receive emergency messages. These activities will engage the private sector, academia, and States in opportunities and technologies to further disseminate emergency messages. This program is a contributing element of the Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act. NOAA's program is designed to complement other agency contributions to that national effort. The Federal Communications Commission has defined a remote area to consist of a county with a population density of 100 persons per square mile or less, based on the most recently available Census data. Also, commercial mobile service means those services that are required to provide E911 services in accordance with Section 20.18 of the Commissions rules. Effectively underserved identifies remote communities that do not receive commercial mobile service as demonstrated by coverage maps, technical analyses, field tests, or any other reasonable means.

Funding Availability: The total funding amount available for proposals is anticipated to be approximately $5,000,000. We anticipate making multiple awards approximately 50 ranging from $50,000 to $250,000.

Statutory Authority: Authority for the Remote Community Alert Systems Program is provided by: 47 U.S.C. 1204.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 11.468, Applied Meteorological Research

Application Deadline: Proposals must be received by NOAA/NWS no later than 5 p.m., April 11, 2008. Proposals should be submitted through www.grants.gov . For those organizations without internet access, proposals may be sent to Craig Hodan, NOAA/NWS, 1325 East-West Highway, Room 3348, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, Phone: 301-713-9480 x 187, email: craig.hodan@noaa.gov . Email and fax submissions will not be accepted.

Information Contacts: Craig Hodan, NOAA/NWS, 1325 East-West Highway, Room 3348, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, Phone: 301-713-9480 x 187, email: craig.hodan@noaa.gov .

Eligibility: Eligible applicants are States and Tribal Communities. This restriction is needed due to the potential number of applications.

Cost Sharing Requirements: No cost sharing is required under this program.

Intergovernmental Review: Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

Funding for potential projects in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal year 2008 appropriations. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been appropriated for any proposed activities in this notice. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

For programs that have deadline dates on or after October 1, 2003, applicants should be aware that they may be required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002 Federal Register , (67 FR 661770 for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or via the internet ( http://www.dunandbradstreet.com ).

NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/ , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216--6--TOC.pdf , NEPA Questionnaire, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/questionnaire.pdf , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc--ceq.htm . Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment.

a. This section applies to the extent that this BAA results in financial assistance awardsinvolving access to export-controlled information or technology.

b. In performing a financial assistance award, the recipient may gain access to export-controlled information or technology. The recipient will then be responsible for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled information and technology, including deemed exports. The recipient shall establish and maintain throughout performance of the financial assistance award effective export compliance procedures at non-NOAA facilities. At a minimum, these export compliance procedures must include adequate controls of physical, verbal, visual, and electronic access to export-controlled information and technology.

c. Definitions

1. Deemed export. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) define a deemed export as any release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national, both in the United States and abroad. Such release is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national. 15 CFR 734.2(b)(2)(ii).

2. Export-controlled information and technology. Export-controlled information and technology is information and technology subject to the EAR (15 CFR parts 730 et seq. ), implemented by the DOC Bureau of Industry and Security, or the International Traffic Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130), implemented by the Department of State, respectively. This includes, but is not limited to, dual-us items, defense articles and any related assistance, services, software or technical data as defined in the EAR and ITAR.

d. The recipient shall control access to all export-controlled information and technology that it possesses or that comes into its possession in performance of a financial assistance award, to ensure that access is restricted, or licensed, as required by applicable Federal laws, Executive Orders, and/or regulations.

e. Nothing in the terms of this section is intended to change, supersede, or waive any of the requirements of applicable Federal laws, Executive Orders or regulations.

f. The recipient shall include this clause, including this paragraph (f), in all lower tier transactions (subawards, contracts, and subcontracts) under the financial assistance award that may involve access to export-controlled information technology.

If the performance of a financial assistance award, if approved by NOAA, requires recipients to have physical access to Federal premises for more than 180 days or access to a Federal information system, any items or services delivered under a financial assistance award shall comply with the Department of Commerce personal identity verification procedures that implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive -12, FIPS PUB 201, and the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-05-24. The recipient shall insert this clause in all subawards or contracts when the subaward recipient or contractor is required to have physical access to a Federally controlled facility or access to a Federal information system.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this solicitation.

This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to thePaperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF LLL, CD-346, SF 424 Research and Related Family, SF 424 Short Organizational Family, SF 424 Individual Form family has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the respective control numbers 4040-0004, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, 0605-0001, 4040-0001, 4040-0003, and 4040-0005. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

I. Notice of Appeal

AES has filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. , and implementing regulations found at 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. AES appeals an objection, filed by the State of Maryland, to a consistency determination prepared by AES related to its proposed LNG terminal project in Baltimore County, Maryland. AES previously filed an appeal with regard to this same project on August 8, 2007. See http://www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm.

Under the CZMA, the Secretary may override the State's objection on grounds that the project is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the CZMA, or necessary in the interest of national security. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “consistent with the objectives or purposes” of the CZMA, the Secretary must find that: (1) The proposed activity furthers the national interest as articulated in sections 302 or 303 of the CZMA, in a significant or substantial manner; (2) the adverse effects of the proposed activity do not outweigh its contribution to the national interest, when those effects are considered separately or cumulatively; and (3) no reasonable alternative is available that would permit the activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with enforceable policies of the State's coastal management program. 15 CFR 930.121. To make the determination that the proposed activity is “necessary in the interest of national security,” the Secretary must find that a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired were the proposed activity not permitted to go forward as proposed. 15 CFR 930.122.

NOAA intends to provide the public with access to all publicly available materials and related documents comprising the appeal record during business hours, at the NOAA Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services.

For additional information about this appeal contact Odin Smith, 301-713-7392.

None.

This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-4100; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Department of Energy Procurement Package; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: The procurement information is used by the Department's program, financial and procurement personnel to evaluate proposals and administer contracts. These collections are used to exercise management oversight and control of the Department's management contractors operating the Department's major facilities and other contractors furnishing goods and services; (5) Respondents: 7,539; (6) Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 896,209.

Statutory Authority: Section 644 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7254, and section 205(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 486(c).

BPA is proposing to conduct a WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding in order to: (1) Adjust BPA's FY 2009 power rates consistent with recent decisions of the Ninth Circuit regarding BPA's WP-02 power rates for FY 2002-2006; and (2) respond to the Court's decision finding BPA's REP Settlement Agreements contrary to the Northwest Power Act.

Due to the time it takes to conduct a general rate adjustment proceeding, BPA determined that its first opportunity to establish revised power rates to conform to the Court's opinions was prior to the one-year FY 2009 rate period. Because BPA's WP-07 rates (FY 2007-2009) are currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for final approval, BPA asked FERC to stay its review until BPA was able to conduct a supplemental rate proceeding to address the issues noted above. This will permit FERC to review a single supplemented record supporting BPA's proposed rates for FYs 2007, 2008, and 2009.

In developing BPA's WP-02 power rates, BPA's revenue requirement included anticipated costs of REP Settlement Agreements with six regional IOUs. BPA allocated the majority of these settlement costs to the Priority Firm Power (PF) Preference rate. Following final approval of BPA's WP-02 rates by FERC, a number of parties challenged the WP-02 power rates in the Ninth Circuit. In Golden NW Aluminum, Inc . v. Bonneville Power Admin. , 501 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2007) ( Golden NW ), the Court held BPA had improperly allocated REP Settlement Agreement costs to BPA's rates for preference customers. During the litigation of Golden NW , but prior to the Court's decision, BPA conducted a subsequent hearing (WP-07) to establish power rates for FY 2007-2009. In establishing these rates, BPA allocated REP settlement costs in the same manner as in BPA's WP-02 rates. Because the Court held in Golden NW that BPA's allocation of REP settlement costs in its WP-02 rates was improper, BPA's allocation of such costs in the WP-07 rates is similarly flawed.

In addition, the Court held that BPA's WP-02 fish and wildlife cost estimates, and by extension the rates set pursuant to those estimates, were not supported by substantial evidence. The Court indicated BPA relied on outdated assumptions and had not appropriately considered information presented regarding its fish and wildlife costs. BPA's subsequent approach to forecasting fish and wildlife costs in the development of its WP-07 rates differed from the approach BPA used in developing its WP-02 rates. Nonetheless, as described in more detail in Part II.A.5, BPA is taking steps to ensure that its final WP-07 Supplemental rates for FY 2009 are based on the most recent projections of fish and wildlife costs available at the time of rate development. In a procedural forum separate from the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding, BPA will provide opportunities for fish and wildlife managers and others to provide input to BPA regarding BPA's fish and wildlife program costs for FY 2009. Decisions made based on the information gained from this separate program cost review forum will be used in the development of BPA's final WP-07 Supplemental rates.

In a companion case to Golden NW , the Court held that BPA's REP Settlement Agreements with the IOUs were contrary to the Northwest Power Act. Portland General Elec. Co. v. Bonneville Power Admin. , 501 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2007) (PGE). Also, subsequent to the Golden NW and PGE decisions, the Court reviewed three petitions for review challenging Load Reduction Agreements (LRAs) BPA executed with two IOUs during the energy crisis of 2000-2001. The Court dismissed two of the petitions for lack of jurisdiction and one petition as moot. The Court also reviewed challenges to amendments to the REP Settlement Agreements signed in 2004. In Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, Wash . v. Bonneville Power Admin. , 506 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2007) ( Snohomish ), the Court remanded the amendments and a contract provision establishing a Reduction of Risk Discount to BPA. BPA must respond to the foregoing decisions. Because the ratemaking and REP issues are interrelated, BPA is proposing to address its response to the Court's decisions in the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding.

In summary, this WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding is being held for four primary purposes: (1) To establish new power rates for FY 2009; (2) to determine the amount of benefits that BPA's IOU customers received, or would have received, from FY 2002 through FY 2008 under REP settlements; (3) to determine the amount of REP benefits the IOUs would have received in the absence of the REP settlements; and (4) to address any difference between these two amounts. Specifically, the revised power rates for FY 2009 include the PF Preference rate and the PF Exchange rate. The average PF Preference rate of $26.2/MWh, about a four percent (4%) reduction, results largely from the reduced REP costs. The revised PF Exchange rate is used to determine REP benefits in FY 2009 As part of this process, BPA is also proposing revisions to BPA's Section 7(b)(2) Legal Interpretation and Section 7(b)(2) Implementation Methodology . An introduction to BPA's WP-07 Supplemental Proposal is contained in Part IV of this Notice. A summary of BPA's proposal regarding the calculation of REP benefits for FY 2002-2008 is contained in Part VI.

Section 7(i) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(i), requires that BPA's rates be established according to certain procedures. These procedures include, among other things: publication of a notice of the proposed rates in the Federal Register ; one or more hearings conducted as expeditiously as practicable by a Hearing Officer; public opportunity to provide both oral and written views related to the proposed rates; opportunity to offer refutation or rebuttal of submitted material; and a decision by the Administrator based on the record. This proceeding is governed by § 1010 of BPA's Rules of Procedure Governing Rate Hearings, 51 FR 7611 (1986) (BPA Hearing Procedures). These procedures implement the statutory section 7(i) requirements.

Section 1010.7 of the BPA Hearing Procedures prohibits ex parte communications. The ex parte rule applies to all BPA and DOE employees and contractors. Except as provided below, any outside communications with BPA and/or DOE personnel regarding BPA's rate case by other Executive Branch agencies, Congress, existing or potential BPA customers (including tribes), and nonprofit or public interest groups are considered outside communications and are subject to the ex parte rule. The general rule does not apply to communications relating to: (1) Matters of procedure only (the status of the rate case, for example); (2) exchanges of data in the course of business or under the Freedom of Information Act; (3) requests for factual information; (4) matters BPA is responsible for under statutes other than the ratemaking provisions; or (5) matters that all parties agree may be made on an ex parte basis. The ex parte rule remains in effect until the Administrator's Final ROD is issued, which is scheduled to occur on or about August 18, 2008.

The Bonneville Project Act, 16 U.S.C. 832, the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act, 16 U.S.C. 838, and the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839, provide guidance regarding BPA ratemaking. The Northwest Power Act requires BPA to set rates that are sufficient to recover, in accordance with sound business principles, the cost of acquiring, conserving and transmitting electric power, including amortization of the Federal investment in the FCRPS over a reasonable period of years, and certain other costs and expenses incurred by the Administrator.

BPA's 2007 Supplemental Wholesale Power Rate Schedules (FY 2009) and 2007 Supplemental General Rate Schedule Provisions (GRSPs) (FY 2009), as well as the Section 7(b)(2) Legal Interpretation and Section 7(b)(2) Implementation Methodologye, are available for viewing and downloading on BPA's Web site at http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase as discussed in Part VII of this Notice. The studies addressing the factors used to develop these rates are listed in Part IV and will be available for examination beginning February 19, 2008, at BPA's Public Information Center, BPA Headquarters Building, 1st Floor, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, and will be provided to parties at the prehearing conference to be held on February 19, 2008, beginning at 9 a.m., Pacific Standard Time, Room 223, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

Copies of the studies and documentation can be downloaded from BPA's Web site at http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase or can be requested (on a compact disc or hard copy) by calling BPA's document request line toll-free at: 1-800-622-4519.

A formal evidentiary rate hearing will be conducted that is open to rate case parties. Interested parties that did not previously intervene in BPA's WP-07 power rate proceeding must file petitions to intervene in order to take part in the WP-07 formal hearing. A proposed schedule for the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding is stated below.

The Hearing Officer will establish a final schedule at the prehearing conference.

As noted above, BPA will conduct two public field hearings in the Pacific Northwest. Public field hearings are an opportunity for persons who are not parties in the formal rate hearing to have their views included in the official record. Written transcripts will be made at all of the field hearings. The field hearings have been scheduled to take place at the locations, dates, and times specified below. The hearing dates also will be posted on the BPA's Web site ( http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase ) and through announcements in local newspapers. Any changes to the scheduled public hearings will be available on the rate case Web site. The BPA Public Affairs Office also may be contacted for this information at the telephone number previously listed.

The following policies are foundational elements that guided the development of major components of this supplemental rate proposal.

On December 21, 1998, BPA issued a Power Subscription Strategy and Record of Decision (Subscription Strategy). The Subscription Strategy reflected BPA's position on the equitable distribution of Federal power for FY 2002-2011. The Subscription Strategy was the culmination of a multi-year public process that established BPA's plan for the availability of Federal power post-2001, the products from which customers could choose, and an outline of the contracts and pricing framework for those products.

The Subscription Strategy provided a marketing framework for the WP-02 and WP-07 power rate cases. The WP-02 and WP-07 power rate cases developed the rate schedules necessary for the products and contracts that were developed through Subscription. The Subscription contracts, except for the REP Settlement Agreements, continue to be the basis for the contractual relationship between BPA and nearly all of its firm power customers. BPA is assuming for purposes of this WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding that the IOUs, except Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power), would have signed Residential Purchase and Sale Agreements (RPSAs) in the fall of 2000 instead of the 2000 REP Settlement Agreements.

The Regional Dialogue process began in April 2002 when a group of BPA's Pacific Northwest electric utility customers submitted a “joint customer proposal” to BPA that addressed both near-term and long-term contract and rate issues. Since then, BPA, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Council), customers, and other interested parties have worked on these near- and long-term issues. Considering the depth and complexity of many of these issues, BPA concluded it was not practical to resolve all issues before the start of the WP-07 rate case. Therefore, BPA determined that it would address the issues in two phases. The first phase of the Regional Dialogue, referred to as the Near-Term Policy, addressed issues that had to be resolved in order to replace power rates that expired in September 2006. See Bonneville Power Administration's Policy for Power Supply Role for Fiscal Years 2007-2011 (February 2005). The issues in the second phase were addressed in BPA's Long-Term Regional Dialogue Final Policy and Record of Decision, which was published on July 19, 2007. The Long-Term Regional Dialogue Final Policy is expected to be implemented through new power sales contracts and a future rate case conducted before such contracts go into effect in FY 2012. The Long-Term Regional Dialogue Final Policy does not affect this WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding.

The Near-Term Policy established parameters for service to the DSIs that were further addressed in “Bonneville Power Administration's Service to DSI Customers for Fiscal Years 2007-2011, Administrator's Record of Decision” (DSI ROD) (June 30, 2005), and Supplement to Administrator's Record of Decision on Bonneville Power Administration's Service to Direct Service Industrial (DSI) Customers for Fiscal Years 2007-2011, Administrator's Record of Decision (May 31, 2006), (together the “DSI RODs”).

In the DSI RODs, BPA determined to offer to aluminum company DSIs power sales contracts for an aggregate 560 aMW of benefits at a capped cost of $59 million. In addition, BPA offered a 17 aMW surplus firm power sales contract for Port Townsend Paper Company through the local public utility under the FPS rate (or the Industrial Firm Power (IP) rate, if viable) at a price approximately equivalent to, but in no case less than, its lowest-cost PF rate.

BPA decided to allocate a share of the 560 aMW of service benefits to each DSI aluminum company for purposes of making an initial offer of service. Because of the financial risks inherent in providing actual power and in order to meet the known and capped cost prerequisite, BPA determined that the delivery mechanism would be to monetize the value of the below-market power sales to provide service benefits through cash payments.

In January 2005, BPA initiated an extensive process, known as the Power Function Review (PFR), to examine Power Services' (formerly known as Power Business Line or PBL) intended program spending levels. The PFR process consisted of two phases designed to give interested parties an opportunity to examine, understand and provide input on the cost projections that would form the basis for BPA's WP-07 Power Rate Proposal. The first phase concluded in June 2005 when BPA issued the PFR Final Report. At that time, BPA committed to re-examine the program levels prior to establishing power rates in BPA's final proposal. In early 2006, BPA conducted the second phase, known as PFR II, allowing interested parties an opportunity to review these program levels. Workshops were held during January through March, 2006 and in April of 2006, BPA issued a draft closeout report for comment. After the close of comment, BPA reviewed all comments and issued the PFR II Final Closeout Report documenting BPA's decisions on June 1, 2006. These updated program levels were then incorporated into BPA's WP-07 Final Proposal.

For the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding, BPA reviewed the FY 2009 program levels incorporated into the WP-07 Final Proposal that were developed through the PFR I and II processes. BPA then evaluated whether these forecasts remain reasonable in light of current projections. From this evaluation, BPA determined that adjustments were needed in certain program areas to address significant changes in forecast program levels. Specifically, these cost areas include: The Residential Exchange Program; Columbia Generating Station (CGS) operation and maintenance; interest; amortization; depreciation; renewables; energy efficiency; long-term generating projects; augmentation; purchased power; and fish and wildlife costs. BPA described the nature of the non-REP cost changes to interested persons in a public workshop on October 10, 2007.

In the October workshop, BPA notified attendees that it intended to initiate a separate public process to address possible changes to the fish and wildlife cost forecast for FY 2009,  1 costs of operating the CGS, and other cost changes identified that are relevant to the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding. In this separate forum, BPA will provide interested persons an opportunity to review and comment on any adjustments to program levels. After the close of comment, BPA will issue a closeout report detailing any necessary adjustments to program levels. These forecast costs will then be incorporated into BPA's final rate proposal for FY 2009.

The Conservation Program Structure Proposal was finalized and issued June 28, 2005. It describes BPA's approach to offering conservation programs during FY 2007 through FY 2009. The decisions of this post-2006 proposal were used as inputs in the development of BPA's WP-07 Power Rate Case Final Proposal. BPA does not propose any changes in this area for the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding.

BPA is committed to marketing its power and transmission services separately in a manner modeled after the regulatory initiatives adopted in 1996 by FERC to promote competition in wholesale power markets. FERC's initiatives in Orders 888  2 and 889  3 directed public utilities regulated under the Federal Power Act to separate their power merchant functions from their transmission reliability functions; unbundle transmission and ancillary services from wholesale power services; and set separate rates for wholesale generation, transmission, and ancillary services. Although BPA is not required by law to follow FERC's regulatory directives that promote competition and open access transmission service, BPA elected to separate its power and transmission operations and unbundle its rates in a manner consistent with the directives concerning open access transmission service. BPA develops its transmission rates in separate proceedings from its power rates.

On February 5, 2007, BPA's Transmission Services (formerly known as the Transmission Business Line or TBL) initiated a rate case to establish transmission rates for the FY 2008-2009 transmission rate period. Prior to the initiation of that rate case, Transmission Services held several public meetings with customers from July through November 2006 to discuss transmission costs, revenues, and rate design issues for the FY 2008-2009 rate period. Customers expressed interest in meeting with Transmission Services to develop a settlement for the FY 2008-2009 rate period. Transmission Services continued meetings with customers between October and November 2006, resulting in the 2008 Transmission Rate Case Settlement Agreement.

On April 23, 2007, BPA issued the “Final Transmission Rate Proposal Administrator's Record of Decision” which adopted the transmission and ancillary services rates reflected in the 2008 Transmission Rate Case Settlement Agreement. FERC granted interim approval to these rates on September 20, 2007. The Transmission Services rate case settlement established fixed rates for certain ancillary services and some transmission rates that incorporate ancillary services. The generation inputs that support the ancillary services and other control area services sold by Transmission Services are provided by Power Services. BPA is not proposing any changes to its generation input costs for FY 2009 except for the recognition of additional revenues expected from Transmission Services for Wind Integration.

Many of the policies that guide BPA's power marketing decisions have been made or will be made in other public review processes. In addition, many decisions about BPA's financial commitments, including for example, what BPA plans to spend on meeting its fish and wildlife obligations, are made in forums other than the rate case. This section provides guidance to the Hearing Officer as to those matters that are within the scope of the rate case, and those that are outside the scope.

Section 7(i) rate proceedings establish the rates applicable to BPA's products and services at levels set to assure recovery of BPA's costs in total. The section 7(i) proceeding does not establish the program levels to be recovered during a rate period. Instead, program levels (including programmatic decisions and decisions regarding spending commitments) are decided in various forums outside the section 7(i) proceedings. Once set, however, program levels are taken into consideration when designing the rates proposed in a section 7(i) proceeding to ensure such costs are recovered. As described in Part II.A.5, BPA evaluated whether updated forecasts of program levels were needed for this WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding, and determined that, except in a few instances, they were not. Therefore, except as noted above in Part II.A.5 and described below, this WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding will not revisit the previous forecasts of program levels for FY 2007-2009 made in the PFR I and II processes and incorporated into the WP-07 Final Proposal. Nor is this WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding the forum to revisit or seek new decisions regarding program spending commitments for this period.

To allow public review and input on program level forecasts that BPA has determined require updating, BPA will hold a separate process to address adjustments to the program level forecasts for FY 2009 associated with CGS costs, fish and wildlife costs and any other necessary program categories for which significant changes have or may occur before BPA's final rate proposal. This separate process will include an opportunity for entities, such as fish and wildlife managers, to engage BPA on the cost assumptions made and the appropriateness of any proposed adjustments in forecasts. Any adjustments adopted by BPA to the program level forecasts for FY 2009 as a result of this separate process will be incorporated into BPA's final rate proposal for FY 2009. Because discussions regarding spending commitments or discussions about adjustments in forecasts of costs in these program areas will occur in forums separate from this rate proceeding, pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the proceeding that seek to address program spending commitment decisions, or address adjustments in the program level forecasts for FY 2009 for CGS costs, fish and wildlife costs, and any other program categories.

As detailed above, BPA issued the Near-Term Policy on February 4, 2005. The Policy resolved a number of policy decisions that affect BPA's WP-07 Supplemental Proposal. Those issues include, but are not limited to, decisions on the availability of the lowest cost PF rate to public agency customers; the term of the rate period; DSI service options; and the availability of products for new or existing customers. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of the BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the proceeding that seek to in any way to revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions made in the Near-Term Policy ROD.

The DSI Service RODs established the manner in which BPA would provide service and benefits to its DSI customers during FY 2007-2011. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of the BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the proceeding that seek to in any way to revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions made in the DSI RODs.

In the PFR I and II processes, BPA reviewed with interested persons program levels related to Power Services' transmission acquisitions. These program levels represent the costs associated with services necessary to deliver energy from generating resources to markets and loads. These costs include: transmission expenses; ancillary services; real power losses; generation integration costs associated with BPA-owned transmission facilities; and metering and communication requirements. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing that seek to in any way revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's transmission acquisition program level estimates.

Power Services provides a portion of the FCRPS's available generation to Transmission Services to enable Transmission Services to meet its various transmission and control area requirements. Transmission Services uses the generation inputs to provide ancillary and control area services. To recover the costs associated with providing these generation inputs, Power Services develops charges based on relevant FCRPS costs that are assessed the transmission function. The costs Power Services are proposing to use to determine the generation input costs and associated unit costs to Transmission Services were addressed in the BPA's WP-07 Final Proposal. Based on updated information, the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal will include revised charges for some generation inputs and these revisions are included within the scope of this rate proceeding. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Hearing Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the proceeding that seek in any way to revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of any issues, other than the charges, related to the generation inputs. This exclusion includes, but is not limited to, issues regarding the level or quality of the generation inputs that Transmission Services requests from Power Services. These determinations are generally made by Transmission Services in accordance with industry, reliability, and other compliance standards and criteria, and are not matters appropriate for the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding.

In addition, BPA will conduct a section 7(i) process related to within-hour balancing capacity for wind generation. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA's Hearing Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding that seek in any way to address the issues contained within the scope of the within-hour balancing capacity for wind generation rate proceeding (Proposed Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service Rate (WI-09)), except that the appropriate treatment of the additional revenue resulting from this proceeding is a matter that is included within the scope of the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding.

On April 23, 2007, BPA issued the 2008 “Final Transmission Proposal-Administrator's Record of Decision” that adopted the transmission and ancillary services rates as reflected in the 2008 Transmission Rate Case Settlement Agreement. FERC granted interim approval to these transmission rates on September 20, 2007. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek in any way to revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of issues determined in the transmission rate case. That proceeding addressed, among other things, transmission and ancillary service rate levels, redispatch costs between Transmission Services and Power Services related to Attachment K redispatch for FY 2008-2009, and the level of the GTA Delivery Charge for FY 2009.

Through the post-2006 workgroup collaboration, customers and constituents provided input on the development of BPA's post-2006 conservation approach. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing that seek to in any way revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's conservation programs and establishment of their associated expense levels through the Post-2006 Conservation Program Structure Proposal dated June 28, 2005. The Hearing Officer is also directed to exclude from the scope of this proceeding evidence regarding BPA's portfolio of conservation programs, as well as their expenses, that BPA intends to pursue during FY 2009.

During the PFR, and in other forums, BPA has provided background information on its internal Federal and non-Federal debt management policies and practices. The discussions of these topics in the PFR and other forums were not intended to seek input from customers and constituents regarding BPA's debt management policies and practices. Rather, these discussions were intended to merely inform interested parties about these matters so that they would better understand BPA's debt structure. Although the PFR closeout letter did not make any decisions regarding BPA's debt management policies and practices, these remain outside the scope of the rate case. Therefore, pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way visit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's debt management policies and practices.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice, BPA is publishing a separate notice in the Federal Register to commence a consultation proceeding to develop a new Average System Cost (ASC) Methodology. Section 5(c) of the Northwest Power Act established the REP, which provides benefits to residential consumers of Pacific Northwest utilities based, in part, on a utility's “average system cost” of resources. Section 5(c)(7) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to consult with regional interests to develop an ASC methodology. The ASC Methodology prescribes which costs are included and excluded from a utility's ASC, as well as the procedural rules for filing proposed ASCs with BPA. Comments on BPA's proposed ASC Methodology will be submitted, reviewed and addressed solely in the separate consultation proceeding. For this reason, issues related to the proposed ASC Methodology are not within the scope of this proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any materials attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing that seek to in any way visit the appropriateness or reasonableness of the proposed ASC Methodology.

For the reasons stated in Section C below, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all evidence and arguments that seek in any way to address the potential environmental impacts of the rates being developed in the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding. Any such evidence and arguments submitted will be considered and addressed in the separate, concurrent process described in the next section.

BPA is in the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of its WP-07 Supplemental Proposal, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BPA's Business Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Business Plan EIS), completed in June 1995, evaluated the environmental impacts of a range of business plan alternatives that could be varied by applying policy modules, including one for rates. Any combination of alternative policy modules should allow BPA to balance its costs and revenues. The Business Plan EIS also addressed response strategies, including adjusting rates, that BPA could pursue if BPA's costs exceeded its revenues. In August 1995, the BPA Administrator issued a Record of Decision (Business Plan ROD) that adopted the Market-Driven Alternative from the Business Plan EIS. This alternative was selected because, among other reasons, it allows BPA to: (1) Recover costs through rates; (2) competitively market BPA's products and services; (3) develop rates that meet customer needs for clarity and simplicity; (4) continue to meet BPA's legal mandates; and (5) avoid adverse environmental impacts. BPA also committed to apply as many response strategies as necessary when BPA's costs and revenues do not balance. In April 2007, BPA completed and issued a Supplemental Analysis to the Business Plan EIS. The Supplemental Analysis found that the Business Plan EIS's relationship-based and policy-level analysis of potential environmental impacts from BPA's business practices remains valid, and that BPA's current business practices are still consistent with BPA's Market-Driven approach. The Business Plan EIS and ROD thus continue to provide a sound basis for making determinations under NEPA concerning BPA's policy-level decisions.

Because the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal likely would assist BPA in accomplishing the goals identified in the Business Plan ROD, the proposal appears consistent with these aspects of the Market-Driven Alternative. In addition, this rate proposal is similar to the type of rate designs evaluated in the Business Plan EIS; thus, implementation of this rate proposal would not be expected to result in significantly different environmental impacts from those examined in the Business Plan EIS. Therefore, BPA expects that this WP-07 Supplemental Proposal will fall within the scope of the Market-Driven Alternative that was evaluated in the Business Plan EIS and adopted in the Business Plan ROD.

As part of the Administrator's Supplemental ROD that will be prepared for the FY 2007 Supplemental Wholesale Power Rate Proposal, BPA may tier its decision under NEPA to the Business Plan ROD. However, depending upon the ongoing environmental review, BPA may, instead, issue another appropriate NEPA document. During the public review and comment period for the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal, persons interested in submitting comments regarding its potential environmental effects may do so by submitting comments to Katherine Pierce, NEPA Compliance Officer, KEC-4, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232. Any such comments received by the comment deadline identified in Part I will be considered by BPA's NEPA compliance staff in the NEPA process that will be conducted for this Proposal.

BPA distinguishes between “participants in” and “parties to” the section 7(i) hearing process. Apart from the formal hearing process, BPA will accept comments, views, opinions, and information from “participants,” who are defined in the BPA Hearing Procedures as persons who may submit comments without being subject to the duties of, or having the privileges of, parties. Participants' written and oral comments will be made a part of the official record and considered by the Administrator when making his decision. Participants are not entitled to participate in the prehearing conference; may not cross-examine parties' witnesses, seek discovery, or serve or be served with documents; and are not subject to the same procedural requirements as parties.

The views of participants are important to BPA. Written comments by participants will be included in the record if they are received by 5:00 p.m., Pacific Daylight Savings Time, on May 5, 2008. This date follows the anticipated submission of BPA's and all other parties' direct cases. Written views, supporting information, questions, and arguments should be submitted to BPA Public Affairs at the address listed in Paragraph 2 of the Summary. In addition, BPA will hold two field hearings in the Pacific Northwest region. Participants may appear at the field hearings and present verbal and written comments. The transcripts of these hearings will be part of the record upon which the Administrator makes his final rate decisions.

Persons who previously intervened in BPA's 2007 Wholesale Power Rate Adjustment Proceeding automatically continue their party status in the 2007 Supplemental Proceeding. Other persons wishing to become a party to BPA's rate proceeding must notify BPA in writing and file a Petition to Intervene with the Hearing Officer. Petitioners may designate no more than two representatives upon whom service of documents will be made. Petitions to Intervene must state the name and address of the person requesting party status and the person's interest in the hearing.

Petitions to Intervene as parties in the rate proceeding are due to the Hearing Officer by 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on February 18, 2008. The petitions should be directed as stated below or may be e-mailed to wp07rate@bpa.gov: Robert Welsh, Hearing Clerk-LP-7, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Avenue, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621.

Petitioners must explain their interests in sufficient detail to permit the Hearing Officer to determine whether they have a relevant interest in the proceeding. Pursuant to § 1010.1(d) of BPA Hearing Procedures, BPA waives the requirement in § 1010.4(d) that an opposition to an intervention petition must be filed and served 24 hours before the February 19, 2008, prehearing conference. Any opposition to an intervention petition may instead be made at the prehearing conference. Any party, including BPA, may oppose a petition for intervention. Persons who have been denied party status in any past BPA rate proceeding shall continue to be denied party status unless they establish a significant change of circumstances. All timely applications will be ruled on by the Hearing Officer. Late interventions are strongly disfavored.

The record will comprise, among other things, verbal and written comments made by participants, including the transcripts of all hearings, any written materials submitted by the parties, documents developed by BPA staff, and other materials accepted into the record by the Hearing Officer. Written comments by participants will be included in the record if they are received by 5 p.m., Pacific Daylight Savings Time, on May 5, 2008. The Hearing Officer will then review the record, supplement it if necessary, and will certify the record to the Administrator for decision.

The Administrator will develop final proposed rates for FY 2009 based on the entire record, which includes the record certified by the Hearing Officer, as described above. The basis for the final proposed rates first will be expressed in the Administrator's Draft Supplemental ROD. Parties will have an opportunity to respond to the Draft Supplemental ROD as provided in the BPA Hearing Procedures. The Administrator will serve copies of the Final Supplemental ROD on all parties. At the conclusion of the rate proceeding, BPA will file the supplemental rate case record and rates for FY 2009 in a timely manner to receive FERC confirmation and approval effective October 1, 2008.

BPA must continue to meet with customers in the ordinary course of business during the rate case. To comport with the rate case procedural rule prohibiting ex parte communications, BPA will provide the prescribed notice of meetings involving rate case issues in order to permit the opportunity for participation by all rate case parties. These meetings may be held on very short notice. Consequently, parties should be prepared to devote the necessary resources to participate fully in every aspect of the rate proceeding and attend meetings any day during the course of the rate case.

BPA is proposing to revise several rate schedules for its 2007 Supplemental Wholesale Power Rates to respond to the Court's recent opinions. The rate schedules and the GRSPs are available for viewing and downloading on BPA's Web site at http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase as discussed in Part VII of this Notice.

The PF rate schedule is comprised of two rates: the PF Preference rate and the PF Exchange rate.

The PF Preference rate applies to BPA's firm power sales to public bodies, cooperatives, and Federal agencies for resale to their regional consumers. This power is guaranteed to be continuously available. The proposed average PF Preference rate is $26.2/MWh. The rate applies to the following products:

The PF Exchange rate applies to sales of power to regional utilities that participate in the Residential Exchange Program established under section 5(c) of the Northwest Power Act. 16 U.S.C. 839c(c). BPA is proposing to revise the PF Exchange rate to remove the demand and energy rates and substitute a single annual rate. In addition, BPA is proposing to include utility-specific supplemental rate charges, consistent with section 7(b)(3) of the Northwest Power Act. 16 U.S.C. 839e(b)(3). These PF Exchange rates are used in determining REP benefits in FY 2009.

The New Resource Firm Power (NR) rate applies to net requirements power sales to IOUs for resale to ultimate consumers for direct consumption, construction, test and start-up, and for station service. NR-07R firm power is also available to public utility customers for serving New Large Single Loads. This rate applies to the following products:

The IP rate is available for discretionary firm power sales to DSI customers authorized by section (5)(d)(1)(A) of the Northwest Power Act. 16 U.S.C 839c(d)(1)(A).

The FPS rate schedule is available for the purchase of Firm Power, Capacity Without Energy, Supplemental Control Area Services, Shaping Services, and Reservation and Rights to Change Services for use inside and outside the Pacific Northwest. The rates for these products are posted and/or negotiated. BPA is proposing only minor changes to this rate schedule for FY 2009.

The GTA Delivery Charge applies to customers who purchase Federal power that is delivered over non-Federal low voltage transmission facilities. This rate was originally set in the 2006 Transmission Services Rate Case Settlement to mirror the Utility Delivery rate from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2007. BPA's 2007 Power Rate Case determined that the GTA Delivery Charge would continue to mirror the Utility Delivery rate, which is $1.119 per kilowatt through September 30, 2009. For FY 2009, Power Services is proposing to continue to set the GTA Delivery Charge to the same rate as Transmission Services' posted monthly Utility Delivery rate, which is $1.119 per kilowatt.

For FY 2009, BPA expects qualifying regional utilities to participate in the REP. BPA is concurrently developing a new ASC Methodology in a separate proceeding and will be offering new RPSAs to requesting utilities. In order to include the costs of an REP in BPA's FY 2009 rates, BPA is forecasting the ASCs of utilities expected to participate in the program. In addition, BPA is forecasting the expected utilities' system and exchangeable residential and small farm loads. However, the ASC Methodology being revised in a concurrent process will be used to conduct an expedited review of utilities' ASCs outside of this WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding. This review will determine the actual ASCs for eligible utilities for FY 2009. Those ASC determinations, when complete, will be incorporated into the final rate proposal and used to determine REP costs in FY 2009 rates.

BPA is not proposing any changes to its inter-function generation input unit charges for FY 2009. The forecast of revenues for FY 2009 in the WP-07 Final Proposal will continue to be used. However, BPA will adjust the inter-function revenue credit to reflect the additional revenues that Power Services expects to receive from Transmission Services based on the proposed Wind Integration—Within-Hour Balancing Service Rate Proceeding (WI-09). Therefore, BPA is proposing to incorporate the forecast revenues determined in the Wind Integration rate case into the final rates of this proceeding.

BPA continues to forecast no direct service sales under the IP rate to its DSI customers. Instead, BPA provides the DSI aluminum smelters 560 aMW of surplus firm power service benefits for the FY 2007-2011 period at a capped cost of $59 million per year. Benefits have been monetized under the contacts with these companies. In addition, BPA provides a 17 aMW surplus firm power sales contract for Port Townsend Paper Company through the local public utility under the FPS rate schedule at a rate that is approximately equivalent to BPA's lowest-cost PF rate.

Consistent with the Partial Resolution of Issues negotiated between BPA and rate case parties before the WP-07 Final Proposal, BPA is generally continuing its existing WP-07 rate design for its FY 2009 rates, with only minor modifications listed below. In addition, BPA is generally continuing its existing set of rate adjustments for its FY 2009 rates, also described below.

BPA is not proposing any changes from its WP-07 Final Proposal for the CRC.

Other than resetting the cap for the FY 2009 Cost Recovery Adjustment Clause (CRAC) and the thresholds for the FY 2009 CRAC and Dividend Distribution Clause (DDC), BPA is proposing no other changes to the CRAC or DDC in the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal. BPA will use the same technical methodology to assess risks and intends to employ the same risk mitigation measures as presented in the WP-07 Final  4 Proposal.

BPA proposes to continue the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Federal FCRPS Biological Opinion (NFB) Adjustment and the Emergency NFB Surcharge. Although BPA expects to include the forecast cost of implementing the final Biological Opinion for the FCRPS in its final supplemental rates, litigation regarding the Biological Opinion may continue, so the Emergency NFB Surcharge and the NFB Adjustment remain appropriate. In order to balance the need to cover risk with overall rate levels, BPA proposes to meet its Treasury Payment Probability (TPP) standard through a combination of financial reserves, the CRAC, the NFB Adjustment, the Emergency NFB Surcharge, and the Flexible PF Rate Program. See Part IV.A.4.

This is a charge that applies to purchasers of the Complex Actual Partial Service Product under the PF rate schedule. BPA is proposing no changes to this charge as established in the WP-07 Final Proposal.

BPA is proposing no changes to the GEP in this Supplemental Proposal. The proposed GEP continues to range from zero to 40 mills per kWh depending on the specific products and associated costs selected by each customer. BPA forecasts an average of $3 million of annual revenue from the GEP for FY 2009, which is an increase from the WP-07 Final Proposal. A portion of revenues from the GEP will support BPA's renewable-related research, development and demonstration projects.

Except for a change in its level, consistent with the Partial Resolution of Issues, BPA is proposing no other changes to the Load Variance Charge. This proposed charge of $0.45/MWh covers BPA's cost of meeting customers' load growth for reasons other than annexation or retail access load gain or loss. In addition, it provides Full and Partial Service purchasers the right to deviate from their monthly forecast of BPA purchases due to weather, economic business cycles, plant energy consumptions and other reasons.

BPA is proposing no changes to the LDD as established in the WP-07 Final Proposal and as agreed to in the Partial Resolution of Issues.

BPA is proposing no changes to the methodology for calculating demand and energy charges. There will be two diurnal periods, Heavy Load Hour (HLH) and Light Load Hours (LLH), for each month. BPA continues to adopt slight changes to the definitions of HLH and LLH to be consistent with NERC definitions. The proposed demand and energy charges will be updated consistent with the Partial Resolution of Issues.

BPA is proposing no changes to the Targeted Adjustment Charge from that established in the WP-07 Final Proposal.

These are penalty charges for Unauthorized Increases in Energy and Unauthorized Increases in Demand for deliveries that exceed contractual entitlements for energy and demand, respectively. BPA is proposing no changes relative to the WP-07 Final Proposal.

This is an adjustment that is made to the demand billing factor for certain requirements products. BPA is proposing no changes relative to the WP-07 Final Proposal.

These are rate options available, at BPA's discretion, to purchasers under the PF and NR rate schedules. BPA is proposing no changes relative to the WP-07 Final Proposal.

BPA is proposing changes to the Slice True-up Adjustment process that are consistent with the (Slice Mediation) Settlement Agreement that was signed after the WP-07 Final Proposal was published. This Settlement Agreement provided for the Slice True-Up Adjustment Charge to be calculated using the average Slice Revenue Requirement for the rate period instead of the Slice Revenue Requirement for each individual year. In addition, this Settlement Agreement provided for changes in the treatment of certain expenses, which are incorporated in this proposal.

Section 7(c)(3) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(c)(3), provides that the Administrator shall adjust rates to the DSI customers “to take into account the value of power system reserves made available to the Administrator through his rights to interrupt or curtail service to such direct service industrial customers.” The DSIs may provide two types of reserves: Supplemental Contingency Reserves and Stability Reserves. The WP-07 Supplemental Proposal reflects Stability Reserves being purchased by Transmission Services and addressed in Transmission Services' transmission rate case. BPA is proposing no changes relative to the WP-07 Final Proposal.

Other than the level of the rates, BPA is proposing no changes to the NR or IP rates relative to the WP-07 Final Proposal.

Power Services is proposing to rely on a number of elements for its risk mitigation package in the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal. These include a CRAC, with the NFB Adjustment and Emergency NFB Surcharge, and a DDC, as well as the following:

(1) Starting Reserves Available for Risk. The financial reserves available for risk that are attributable to Power Services at the start of the rate period provide some protection against financial uncertainties. Starting financial reserves available for risk include portions attributed to the generation function of cash in the BPA Fund and the deferred borrowing balance that are attributed to the generation function. Projections of Power Services' reserves available for risk at the beginning of FY 2009 range from $50 million to $2.7 billion, with an expected value of $1.03 billion. These amounts do not include cash that has accumulated as a result of the suspension of payments under the REP Settlement Agreements.

(2) Planned Net Revenues for Risk (PNRR). PNRR is a dollar amount in the generation revenue requirement that generates additional revenue in order to increase the generation function reserves. The anticipated generation function reserves available for risk, with the tools noted above, are sufficient for the agency to meet its financial objective of a 97.5 percent one-year TPP for FY 2009. As a result, BPA's proposed risk mitigation package will not include any PNRR.

(3) Flexible PF Rate Program. This program is designed to provide $193 million of liquidity cash through an accelerated payment of certain participating public utilities' power bills. This accelerated payment will be triggered at BPA's sole discretion should the probability of reserves falling below a certain reserve threshold be greater than the acceptable probability, as decided prior to a cash crisis.

The RAM2009 model is a large Excel spreadsheet model that is automated with Visual Basic macros. RAM2009 has two main steps: a Rate Design Step and a Slice Separation Step. The RAM2009 Rate Design Step implements BPA's rate directives by modifying the costs associated with the three resource pools (Federal Base System, Residential Exchange, and New Resources) used to serve three rate pools (7(b) loads, 7(c) loads, and 7(f) and surplus loads) as developed in the Cost of Service Analysis (COSA). After the initial allocation of costs, the Northwest Power Act requires that some rate adjustments be made, such as those described in section 7(b) and section 7(c) of the Northwest Power Act. The RAM2009 performs these rate adjustments, and several others, including the 7(b)(2) rate test, in its Rate Design Step. The Rate Design Step of RAM2009 concludes with the calculation of proposed power rates. The Slice Separation Step then separates the PF Slice product costs and firm loads from the overall PF Preference rate pool, leaving the costs that must be covered by the remaining non-Slice product PF Preference load.

Because this proceeding reopens the WP-07 docket, all material already filed on the record remains on the record and is available to all parties. BPA's WP-07 Final Proposal Studies constitute the foundation on which the Supplemental Proposal is built. However, certain new information will be incorporated to form the Supplemental Proposal. BPA will explain and document the revisions that are incorporated in the Supplemental Proposal in a new set of studies. The studies that have been prepared to support BPA's WP-07 Supplemental Wholesale Power Rate Proposal are described in detail in this section:

Supplemental Load Resource Study and Documentation;

Supplemental Revenue Requirement Study and Documentation;

Supplemental Market Price Forecast Study and Documentation;

Supplemental Risk Analysis Study and Documentation;

Supplemental Wholesale Power Rate Development Study and Documentation;

Supplemental Section 7(b)(2) Rate Test Study and Documentation; and

Lookback Study and Documentation for FY 2002-2008.

The Load Resource Study represents the compilation of the load and resource data necessary for developing BPA's wholesale power rates. The Study has three major interrelated components: (a) BPA's Federal system load forecast; (b) BPA's Federal system resource forecast; and (c) the Federal system load and resource balances.

Since publication of the WP-07 Final Proposal, only a few minor changes have occurred. The Supplemental Load Resource Study documents the increase in load BPA is currently forecasting for FY 2009 relative to the WP-07 Final Proposal. It also recognizes some changes in Federal resource output for FY 2009 resulting from recent BPA acquisitions and contract purchases, updated assumptions for the CGS maintenance schedule, and revisions to BPA's hydro efficiency improvement estimates.

The purpose of the Revenue Requirement Study is to establish the level of revenues from wholesale power rates necessary to recover, in accordance with sound business principles, the FCRPS costs associated with the production, acquisition, marketing, and conservation of electric power. Generation revenue requirements include: Recovery of the Federal investments in hydro generation; recovery of fish and wildlife costs and energy conservation; Federal agencies' operations and maintenance expenses allocated to power; capitalized contract expenses associated with such non-Federal power suppliers as Energy Northwest; other purchase power expenses, such as short-term power purchases; power marketing expenses; cost of transmission services necessary for the sale and delivery of FCRPS power; and all other power-related costs incurred by the Administrator pursuant to law.

For FY 2009, BPA is forecasting that most power-related costs will remain at the same levels as in the WP-07 Final Proposal, with the exception of the costs associated with the REP. A limited number of additional changes is proposed for the Supplemental Proposal. Forecasts of operating costs for the CGS show an increase as do the costs related to system augmentation. Depreciation, amortization, Federal interest and non-Federal debt service will be updated. The proposed changes are presented in Table 2.

BPA also expects changes to the costs of its fish and wildlife commitments, particularly from the final FCRPS Biological Opinion, now expected on March 18, 2008. For reasons of efficiency and to ensure the most up-to-date information, BPA prefers to estimate those changes when the Biological Opinion is issued. If the Opinion is delayed, BPA will forecast those costs using the best available information. As noted above, BPA does not establish program levels in rate cases. BPA will conduct a review of changes to the power-related costs from the WP-07 Final Proposal in a forum external to this proceeding. The results of that review will be incorporated into the final studies of this WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding.

The Market Price Forecast Study estimates the variable hourly cost of the marginal resource for transactions in the wholesale energy market. The specific market used in this analysis is the Mid-Columbia trading hub in the State of Washington. For the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal, BPA does not propose to change the price forecast from the WP-07 Final Proposal.

The Risk Analysis Study focuses upon two types of risks and their impacts on BPA's revenues and expenses. The first type of risks is comprised of operating risks such as variations in economic conditions, load, and generation resource capability. These operating risks include the impacts of water supply conditions and market prices on net revenues. The second type of risks comprises non-operating risks—all the risks included in the rate case risk modeling other than operating risks. This type of non-operating risks also includes uncertainty in achieving cost reductions identified in the Power Function Review.

BPA subsequently evaluates the impact that different risk mitigation measures have on reducing net revenue risk by calculating the TPP. The TPP is a measure of the probability that BPA will make each Treasury payment on time and in full. If the TPP is below BPA's one-year 97.5 percent standard, the combination of risk mitigation tools (e.g., Cost Recovery Adjustment Clause, NFB Adjustment, Emergency NFB Surcharge, Dividend Distribution Clause) is modified to meet the TPP standard.

BPA is proposing no changes in the form or methodology of the risk analysis. The Supplemental Proposal risk analysis will be updated for changes to input data that account for changes in BPA's loads, resources, costs, and financial position.

The Wholesale Power Rate Development Study (WPRDS) is the primary source for details concerning the development of BPA's power rates. It reflects the results of all of the other studies and calculates the rates for BPA's wholesale power products and services. The WPRDS documents the allocation and recovery of Federal power costs; development of the Slice cost table; the development and forecast of inter-function revenues and expenses; the development of diurnal energy rates; the development of rates for demand, load variance, unauthorized increase usage, and excess load factoring; and other rate provisions (e.g., the Low Density Discount, Conservation Rate Credit, and irrigation rate mitigation). The results of the WPRDS are reflected in the wholesale power rate schedules.

Because of the Ninth Circuit's decisions on the allocation of the costs of the REP Settlement Agreements, most of the changes in the Supplemental Proposal are focused on the WPRDS. With the exception of certain auxiliary rate provisions, the WPRDS will be reproduced to document fully the development of BPA's power rates for the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal.

The 7(b)(2) rate test is explained below in Part V. The Section 7(b)(2) Rate Test Study describes the application and results of the Section 7(b)(2) Legal Interpretation (Legal Interpretation) and Section 7(b)(2) Implementation Methodology (Implementation Methodology). BPA is proposing revisions to the Legal Interpretation and Implementation Methodology in the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding. See Part V below.

The 7(b)(2) rate test triggers in this proposal, causing costs to be reallocated in the test period. The PF Preference rate applied to the general requirements of the 7(b)(2) Customers has been reduced by the 7(b)(3) amount. Other rates, the PF Exchange rate and the NR and IP rates, have been increased by an allocation of the 7(b)(3) amount.

Because of the proposed changes to the Legal Interpretation and Implementation Methodology , the Section 7(b)(2) Rate Test Study is being fully reproduced to document the changes to the rate test and its inputs and assumptions.

The Lookback Study for FY 2002-2008 quantifies the amounts of REP settlement costs improperly included in FY 2002-2008 power rates (Lookback Amounts) and describes how these amounts will be recovered over time from IOUs and returned to preference customers. These are not simple calculations for each year of the lookback period because of the need to account for Load Reduction Agreements and existing deemer balances. See Part VI.D. The differences are referred to as Lookback Amounts for FY 2002-2008. The calculation of Lookback Amounts is described and documented in the Lookback Study.

As explained above, section 7(b)(2) of the Northwest Power Act directs BPA to conduct a rate test to assure that the wholesale power rates for 7(b)(2) customers are no higher than the costs of power would be to those customers for the same time period if specified assumptions are made. The rate test is conducted in conformance with the Section 7(b)(2) Legal Interpretation and Section 7(b)(2) Implementation Methodology.

Issues requiring interpretation of Section 7(b)(2) of the Northwest Power Act were initially resolved in the Legal Interpretation of Section 7(b)(2) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act. 49 FR 23,998 (June 8, 1984). The Legal Interpretation was developed in a public comment process.

The methodology to implement section 7(b)(2) was developed in a section 7(i) proceeding that preceded BPA's 1985 rate case. The 7(i) process culminated in the Section 7(b)(2) Implementation Methodology Record of Decision (b-2-84-F-02). The 7(i) process conducted to develop the Implementation Methodology for section 7(b)(2) was designated as the first phase of BPA's 1985 rate filing. The Implementation Methodology prescribes in detail how the 7(b)(2) rate test is to be conducted. The Implementation Methodology and its ROD address the major issues involving the implementation of section 7(b)(2), including reserve benefits, financing benefits, natural consequences, and the rate test trigger.

BPA is proposing revisions to the Implementation Methodology and the Legal Interpretation in the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal. Proposed changes to the Implementation Methodology will be explained in BPA's Supplemental Proposal testimony. Proposed changes to the Legal Interpretation are contained in the Legal Interpretation attached to this Notice. Legal arguments concerning the Legal Interpretation will be addressed by BPA in the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal Draft and Final Records of Decision. BPA expects parties to have the opportunity to file legal briefs or memoranda to accompany and support their rate test testimonies in order that their legal arguments can be reviewed by BPA prior to receiving the parties' initial briefs.

In preparing for the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding, BPA and interested parties explored various issues regarding the Legal Interpretation and Implementation Methodology through several workshops. In order to bring greater clarity and certainty to the conduct of the rate test, BPA is proposing a number of modifications to the Legal Interpretation and Implementation Methodology. The major modifications are listed below.

The current Legal Interpretation and Implementation Methodology provide that preference customers' resources dedicated to serving their own firm loads under section 5(b) of the Northwest Power Act are not available to BPA in the 7(b)(2)(D) resource stack to serve 7(b)(2) Customer load. BPA proposes to clarify its interpretation of section 7(b)(2)(D) to provide that preference customer resources that are used to serve any utility's section 5(b) load are not available in the 7(b)(2) Case resource stack.

The current Implementation Methodology provides that BPA-acquired conservation will be included in the section 7(b)(2)(D) resource stack and that 7(b)(2) Customer loads will be adjusted to remove the effects of the conservation. The Implementation Methodology made no provision for conservation that is no longer effective in reducing loads. BPA is proposing to revise the Methodology to remove past conservation that is no longer effective.

The current Legal Interpretation and Implementation Methodology provide that three natural consequences will be reflected in the rate test: demand elasticities amount of surplus firm power available, and size of nonfirm energy markets. The surplus and nonfirm consequences are the results of reasonable mathematical computations stemming from differing assumptions between the two rate test cases. Demand elasticities are not necessarily the result of reasonable mathematical computations. BPA is proposing to remove demand elasticities from the natural consequences listed in the Implementation Methodology.

The current Legal Interpretation provides that specified 7(g) costs will be removed from the Program Case, but not from the 7(b)(2) Case. However, this language does not conform to BPA's past practices in conducting the rate test. BPA proposes to change this language to specify that the 7(g) cost exclusion applies to both cases prior to the incorporation of the assumptions specified in section 7(b)(2).

The current Implementation Methodology provides that certain resources taken from the resource stack would be added in discrete lumps. BPA proposes to remove the effects of the discrete lumps on the rate test by selling excess resources at the cost of the excess resources.

Neither the current Legal Interpretation nor Implementation Methodology addresses the treatment of REP settlement costs. BPA proposes to add language that clarifies that REP settlement costs are costs that should be excluded from the 7(b)(2) Case pursuant to section 7(b)(2)(C).

Although BPA is proposing an approach to address the Court's decisions, as described in greater detail below, BPA recognizes there are several ways to approach this matter. For example, one element of BPA's proposal for calculating the Lookback Amounts limits the amounts retained by IOUs to the lesser of an IOU's REP settlement benefits or the amount the IOU would have received under the REP. The proposed FY 2009 REP benefits to the IOUs would be significantly higher if, instead of proposing to limit the amounts the IOUs were entitled to in FY 2007 and FY 2008 to the amounts they would have received under the REP settlements, BPA had instead proposed that the IOUs were entitled to the recalculated REP benefits for those years. BPA encourages parties to propose alternative approaches to this or other elements of BPA's proposal to address the Court's decisions for the agency to consider.

This section describes, in general, BPA's proposal for responding to recent decisions of the Ninth Circuit noted previously. In PGE, the Court held that BPA's REP Settlement Agreements were inconsistent with the Northwest Power Act. In a companion opinion, Golden NW, the Court held that BPA improperly allocated REP Settlement Agreement costs to BPA's preference customers in its WP-02 power rates and remanded the rates to BPA. Although the Ninth Circuit in Golden NW also found infirmities in BPA's estimates of fish and wildlife costs for the WP-02 rates, the rates nevertheless recovered all of the costs of BPA's fish and wildlife commitments for FY 2002-2006. BPA acknowledges that entities may continue to assert that BPA had not committed enough funding to fish and wildlife activities during this period, but as the Court notes, that is not a matter determined in a rate proceeding. As a result, BPA is not proposing any changes in the WP-07 Supplemental Proceeding to its fish and wildlife commitments for FY 2002-2006. As discussed elsewhere, BPA is proposing a specific process, external to the rate case, to ensure its forecasts for fish and wildlife costs are as up-to-date as possible for purposes of establishing rates for FY 2009.

In a subsequent opinion, Snohomish, the Court remanded amendments to the REP Settlement Agreements and a provision regarding a Reduction of Risk discount the Court found was based on such Agreements. Three memorandum opinions, released at the same time as Snohomish, dismissed challenges to BPA's 2001 LRAs with PacifiCorp and Puget Sound Energy.

BPA is proposing to respond to the Court's decisions by: (1) Determining Lookback Amounts, which are the costs associated with the REP settlements that were improperly included in FY 2002-2008 rates and therefore should be recovered from IOUs and returned to preference customers; (2) recovering Lookback Amounts over time by reducing future REP benefits due to IOUs; and (3) concomitantly reducing preference customers' rates to reflect the lower REP benefit payments. Because BPA allocated REP settlement costs in its WP-07 power rates in the same manner as BPA allocated such costs in its WP-02 rates, BPA has reopened its WP-07 power rate proceeding to revise its power rates for FY 2009.

In 1998, BPA's Subscription Strategy proposed offering BPA's regional IOU customers the option of signing RPSAs to participate in a traditional REP or signing REP Settlement Agreements for FY 2002-2011. The REP Settlement Agreements were to provide power and monetary benefits to the IOUs' residential and small farm consumers in order to resolve disputes arising under BPA's implementation of the REP. Prior to the development of the RPSAs and REP Settlement Agreements in 2000, the IOUs submitted letters to BPA stating their intent to participate in the REP. Through negotiations and a public notice and comment administrative proceeding, BPA developed prototype RPSAs and REP Settlement Agreements. BPA issued respective records of decision on October 4, 2000, for the RPSAs and REP Settlement Agreements. BPA then offered the RPSAs and REP Settlement Agreements to the IOUs.

All of the IOUs elected to execute the REP Settlement Agreements. For FY 2002-2006, the Settlement Agreements included 900 aMW of financial benefits and 1000 aMW of power at a cost-based rate, consistent with the Subscription Strategy. Subsequent to the execution of the REP Settlement Agreements, BPA entered into LRAs with PacifiCorp and Puget Sound Energy whereby BPA bought back the power component of the utilities' REP Settlement Agreements as part of BPA's strategy to limit the financial impacts of the West Coast energy crisis. Through amendments to the REP Settlement Agreements signed in 2004, benefits for FY 2007-2011 were set at 2200 aMW of financial benefits.

BPA conducted the WP-02 rate proceeding to establish power rates for FY 2002-2006. BPA allocated the costs of the REP settlements to the PF Preference rate. A cost recovery adjustment clause captured the costs of the LRAs with PacifiCorp and Puget Sound Energy. A number of parties subsequently filed separate challenges to BPA's REP Settlement Agreements and BPA's WP-02 power rates in the Ninth Circuit. On May 3, 2007, the Court issued the PGE and Golden NW opinions noted above.

Together with the Court's decision in PGE, BPA interprets the Court's remand in Golden NW as requiring BPA to remove the cost of the REP settlements from the PF Preference rate. In removing these costs, however, the Court's decisions do not require BPA to ignore the fact that, in the absence of the REP Settlement Agreements, the IOUs would have received benefits during the FY 2002-2006 rate period under the traditional REP. As noted previously, prior to the development of the RPSAs and REP Settlement Agreements, the IOUs submitted letters to BPA stating their intent to participate in the REP. Consequently, absent BPA's offer of REP Settlement Agreements, BPA assumes that all IOUs except Idaho Power would have participated in the REP, the costs of which would have been reflected in setting BPA's power rates.

In response to the Court's decisions, BPA proposes to determine the amount of benefits provided to each IOU under the REP settlements. BPA also proposes to calculate the amount of REP benefits each IOU would have received from BPA during the FY 2002-2006 rate period in the absence of the REP Settlement Agreements. In order to calculate such REP benefits, BPA proposes to remove the REP settlement costs from BPA's WP-02 power rates and replace them with costs associated with a traditional REP. This change will establish the PF Exchange rate that would have been used to implement the REP during the rate period. This approach requires BPA to review and decide a number of issues in the WP-02 Final Proposal that were undecided or rendered moot by the presence of the REP Settlement Agreements. Failure to allow parties to address these issues on the merits would be inequitable. In addition, BPA must estimate the IOUs' respective ASCs for the rate period, which are used in conjunction with the PF Exchange rate and the IOUs' residential and small farm loads to determine each IOU's respective REP benefits. BPA proposes to compare each IOU's REP benefits with the actual payments made to that IOU under the REP settlements.

Based on the resulting differences between these two amounts, BPA will determine the Lookback Amounts to be recovered from each IOU and returned to preference customers via lower rates, as described in Section D below. Section E describes BPA's proposal for how the Lookback Amounts will be recovered over time. This approach responds to the Court's remand of the WP-02 rates by effectively reimbursing, through lower rates over time, preference customers for costs that should not have been included in the WP-02 preference rates during the FY 2002-2006 rate period.

In constructing this approach, BPA is not proposing to recalculate any rates other than the PF Exchange rate for the FY 2002-2006 period. BPA is proposing to recalculate only the PF Exchange rate for this period because this is the rate necessary to calculate the REP benefits the IOUs would have received. Consequently, this approach does not require BPA to recalculate any other rates for this period.

The determination of utility-specific Lookback Amounts is complex. In addition to the REP Settlement Agreements, BPA must also account for the Court's decision in Snohomish, which remanded to BPA the 2004 amendments to the REP Settlement Agreements and the Reduction of Risk discount that the Court found was based on those Agreements. BPA also must consider three memorandum opinions that dismissed challenges to the LRAs. In addition, the operation of the REP would have accounted for existing deemer balances, that is, amounts accrued by exchanging utilities and owed to BPA that must be eliminated before REP benefits can be paid.

BPA is proposing to adopt a similar approach to that used for FY 2002-2006 to address BPA's WP-07 rates for FY 2007 and FY 2008. The rates charged in these years, like the WP-02 rates, included REP settlement costs. Although the Ninth Circuit has not ruled on the validity of BPA's WP-07 rates, the Court's holdings in PGE, Golden NW, and Snohomish implicate the validity of the rates BPA established for these years. Rather than wait for the Court to remand these rates to BPA in a subsequent case, BPA proposes to remedy these problems now. BPA's specific proposal is to adopt a remedy similar to that described above; that is, BPA proposes to remove the REP settlement costs from power rates and replace such costs with the costs of providing benefits to IOUs under the REP in FY 2007 and FY 2008. BPA will then compare the benefits under the REP to the payments each IOU received, or would have received, under the REP settlements for these years, determine the appropriate difference, and propose how this difference should be returned to preference customers.

Once again, in constructing this approach, BPA is not proposing to recalculate any rates other than the PF Exchange rate for the FY 2007-2008 period. BPA is proposing to recalculate only the PF Exchange rate for this period because this is the rate necessary to calculate the REP benefits the IOUs would have received. Consequently, this approach does not require BPA to recalculate any other rates for this period.

The first step in responding to the PGE, Golden NW, and Snohomish decisions is to calculate the amount of benefits paid to each IOU under the REP settlements during FY 2002-2008. These benefits include, for example, the Conservation and Renewables Discount (C&RD) and Conservation Rate Credit (CRC), and a power sale to PGE. BPA reviewed its accounting records and determined the amounts paid to each IOU as well as the amounts that would have been paid had payments to the IOUs not been suspended. These amounts are detailed in the Lookback Study. This determination also identifies the source of the payments, i.e., the portion of the payments made under the REP Settlement Agreements, LRAs, etc. The total benefits paid were approximately $1.96 billion for FY 2002-2006 and $168 million for FY 2007. Benefits that would have been paid in the latter half of FY 2007 and in FY 2008 after the suspension of payments subsequent to the Court's rulings in May 2007 would have totaled $505 million.

As previously described, BPA proposes to determine the amount of REP benefits that would have been paid to each IOU in the absence of the REP settlements. These costs would have been included in the WP-02 and WP- 07 power rates for FY 2002-2008 instead of the costs of the REP settlements. In order to make this determination, BPA must evaluate two key elements of the REP: (1) The WP-02 and WP-07 PF Exchange rates and (2) the IOUs' respective ASCs during FY 2002-2008. BPA's proposals for these two rate periods are described below.

BPA proposes to recalculate the PF Exchange rate for FY 2002-2006 assuming that all IOUs except Idaho Power would have participated in the REP in the absence of the REP Settlement Agreements. To develop this rate, BPA proposes to return to its WP-02 Supplemental Rate Proposal and revise its base rates with altered input assumptions consistent with information available at that time and with reconsideration of section 7(b)(2) rate test issues that were previously undecided or rendered moot. The resulting PF Exchange rate is the rate that would have been used by BPA to calculate benefits under the traditional REP during FY 2002-2006.

Although BPA's PF Exchange rate is a critical element of the REP, actual REP benefits paid to each IOU are not determined in BPA's rate cases. BPA's rate cases only forecast the expected levels of REP benefits, which comprise the expected costs that will be included in rates for the rate period. The actual level of REP benefits a utility receives is determined during the rate period as the REP is implemented and is based on a comparison of the PF Exchange rate and a utility's filed ASC, multiplied by the utility's residential and small farm loads. To calculate REP payments for FY 2002-2006, BPA would normally use filed ASCs. The IOUs, however, did not make ASC filings with BPA during the WP-02 period because the REP Settlement Agreements did not require such filings. Consequently, to calculate the REP benefits that would have been paid during the WP-02 rate period, BPA proposes to determine annual ASC for each IOU during the rate period.

To determine these annual ASCs, BPA proposes to look to FERC Form 1 data filed by each IOU with FERC for FY 2002-2006. From these historical data, BPA proposes to calculate an annual ASC for each utility by following the functionalization rules as set forth in the 1984 ASC Methodology. Relying on the 1984 Methodology is a conservative assumption given that BPA would likely have re-opened the ASC Methodology had the IOUs not executed the REP Settlement Agreements. The imputed ASCs, in conjunction with the reconstituted PF Exchange rate and actual exchange loads, are used to calculate utility-specific amounts of REP benefits that would have been paid during the WP-02 rate period.

Similar to the FY 2002-2006 period, BPA's PF Preference rate for FY 2007-2008 included REP settlement costs. To remedy this infirmity, BPA proposes to use a similar construct as described previously to determine the REP benefits the IOUs would have received for FY 2007-2008; that is, BPA proposes to recalculate the PF Exchange rate for FY 2007-2008 assuming an REP, and then impute annual ASCs for each IOU customer for FY 2007-2008 to determine the REP benefits that would have been paid during this period.

BPA is proposing to conduct the section 7(b)(2) rate test in this Supplemental Proposal in a manner consistent with the rate test used in the reformulation of the PF Exchange rate for FY 2002-2006. The results of the rate test, in conjunction with all other assumptions used in setting rates during the WP-07 rate proceeding, will be used in recalculating the PF Exchange rate for FY 2007-2008.

Consistent with BPA's proposal to determine the REP benefits IOUs would have received in FY 2002-2006, BPA proposes to determine IOU ASCs for FY 2007-2008 relying on BPA's 1984 ASC Methodology. BPA is proposing to use FERC Form 1 data from 2006 and a trend analysis to project ASCs for FY 2007-2008. BPA believes this approach approximates what the actual ASCs would be for FY 2007-2008. As with the FY 2002-2006 rate period, these imputed ASCs, in conjunction with the reconstituted PF Exchange rate and actual and forecast exchange loads, are used to calculate a utility-specific amount of REP benefits that would have been paid for FY 2007-2008.

Determining the Lookback Amounts is not a simple proposition. A number of factors affect the amount of settlement benefits received by the IOUs and, more importantly, whether the IOUs are entitled to retain such benefits in the absence of the REP Settlement Agreements. For example, although the Court found the REP Settlement Agreements unlawful, the Court remanded the 2004 amendments to BPA. The Court also remanded the Reduction of Risk discount, also called the “litigation penalty” by some preference customers, to BPA. In addition, the Court issued three memorandum opinions dismissing challenges to the LRAs.

As a result, BPA cannot simply subtract the REP benefits otherwise due the IOUs from the benefits paid under the REP Settlement Agreements, 2004 amendments, and LRAs to calculate the amount to be recovered from the IOUs. In addition, implementation of the traditional REP would have meant that the deemer balances for certain IOUs would have to be considered in determining the REP benefits that would have been paid absent the REP Settlement Agreements. This section describes BPA's proposal for determining the Lookback Amounts.

RPSAs are the contracts that implement the REP. BPA's 1981 RPSA established what was called a “deemer account.” In the event that an exchanging utility's ASC fell below the PF Exchange rate, rather than pay BPA, the utility would accumulate a balance in a deemer account based on the difference between its ASC and the PF Exchange rate multiplied by the utility's eligible exchange load. The 1981 RPSA provided that any obligations incurred under that RPSA would continue until satisfied, even if the RPSA expired. The RPSA also provided that the utility must repay its deemer balance before receiving any positive REP benefits. Idaho Power, Northwestern Energy, and Avista Corporation (Avista) all have extant deemer balances.

BPA proposes that its determination of the amount of REP benefits that would have been provided to the IOUs should account for utilities' deemer balances. Therefore, BPA proposes that any REP benefits calculated for an IOU with a deemer balance will first be used to extinguish its deemer balance before being compared to the REP settlement payments to establish a Lookback Amount for that IOU. Under BPA's proposal, Northwestern Energy and Avista exhaust their deemer balances in FY 2005 and FY 2007, respectively. Under BPA's determination of REP benefits, absent the REP settlements, Idaho Power does not qualify for REP benefits during the FY 2002-2008 period so there are no reductions to its deemer balance and its Lookback Amount is equal to the REP settlement benefits it received.

BPA proposes a second condition on the calculation of the amount to be recovered from each IOU for FY 2002-2008. In calculating this Lookback Amount for each utility, BPA proposes that REP benefits that exceed the REP settlement benefits shall not be credited to the Lookback Amount. Said another way, an IOU cannot receive more benefits under the REP than it received, or would have received, under the REP settlements. This condition is applied each year for FY 2002-2008.

As previously mentioned, the LRAs with PacifiCorp and Puget Sound Energy are contracts wherein BPA bought back power from these two IOUs to limit exposure to the high and volatile market prices of the West Coast energy crisis. No party filed a challenge to the LRAs within the Northwest Power Act's 90-day statute of limitations. Two petitions for review were filed with the Ninth Circuit challenging BPA's unsuccessful attempts to develop a broad settlement of all outstanding litigation against BPA. The Court noted that the petitions were challenging actions that never occurred and dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction. Another petition was filed that challenged the LRAs, but it was filed two and one half years after expiration of the 90-day statute of limitations. The Court noted that the only issue raised in the petition concerned the Reduction of Risk Discount provision of the LRAs. Having dealt with the Reduction of Risk Discount in Snohomish , the Court dismissed the petition challenging the LRAs as moot.

In light of the Court's actions, BPA proposes to treat the LRA payments to PacifiCorp and Puget Sound Energy in the following manner. First, BPA will assume that the total REP settlement benefits paid to these two IOUs include the REP Settlement Agreement benefits, the LRA payments, and the C&RD/CRC benefits. BPA proposes that PacifiCorp and Puget Sound Energy (Puget) keep the lesser of the REP settlement benefits or the REP benefits the utilities would have received in the absence of the REP Settlement Agreements, but not less than the amount of the LRA payments. This proposal effectively treats the LRA payments to PacificCorp and Puget Sound Energy as “protected” payments that are not subject to recovery as part of their Lookback Amounts.

In Snohomish , the Court held that the Reduction of Risk Discount was founded on the original REP Settlement Agreements and remanded the issue to BPA. Therefore, BPA proposes to treat the Reduction of Risk discount payments as suffering the same fate as the REP Settlement Agreement payments. Any amount paid to PacifiCorp and Puget for the Reduction of Risk Discount will be included in their REP Settlement Agreement benefits and will therefore be subject to recovery through the lookback process.

The application of the previous three sections results in annual Lookback Amounts for each IOU. BPA is proposing to escalate the annual Lookback Amounts for FY 2002-2006 to 2007 dollars to adjust for the effects of inflation. The resulting cumulative Lookback Amounts for each IOU, in 2007 dollars for FY 2002-2007 are provided in Table 3.

The Lookback Amounts in Table 3 assume that BPA offers, and the IOUs sign, the Interim Agreements. In the absence of Interim Agreements, no REP benefits will be paid in FY 2008, creating an amount of REP benefits otherwise due to the IOUs for that year, which will be used to reduce accumulated Lookback Amounts by $189 million.

Because the IOUs have already passed REP Settlement and LRA benefits on to their residential and small farm customers for FY 2002-2006 and part of FY 2007, BPA proposes to recover Lookback Amounts from the IOUs by reducing future REP benefits determined to be otherwise due them. The amount of the reduction in benefits due will be determined by the Administrator in each rate case. The reduced REP payments to IOUs will result in lower PF Preference rates for FY 2009 and beyond until Lookback Amounts are fully amortized. These lower PF rates constitute a portion of the compensation to preference customers for the amounts they overpaid in FY 2002-2008 power rates.

An additional portion of the compensation may occur as provided in Standstill Payment Agreements, if offered, for those preference customers that sign such agreements or via customer-specific credits on FY 2009 power bills if such agreements are not signed.

The reduction in the amounts of REP benefits that would have otherwise been due will be credited against each IOU's Lookback Amount. This practice will continue as needed each rate period until each IOU has amortized its total Lookback Amount, including interest. BPA proposes that unamortized Lookback balances will accrue interest. The proposed reduction in REP benefits for FY 2009 is an amount that is expected to amortize each IOU's Lookback Amount plus accrued interest within 20 years, with the exception of Idaho Power. The assumptions and proposal with regard to Idaho Power are described in more detail below.

BPA expects that all IOUs except Idaho Power will amortize their respective Lookback Amounts, including interest, within 20 years based on a set of simple assumptions regarding the future. These assumptions are:

1. The FY 2009 individual IOU REP benefits paid continue in future rate periods until such time each IOU fully amortizes its Lookback Amount;

2. Each IOU's FY 2009 REP benefits amount (before reductions applied for Lookback Amounts) increases by 2.5 percent per year (as a consequence of growth in eligible exchange loads and/or increases in IOU ASCs and/or changes in PF Exchange rates, none of which is specifically forecasted or otherwise modeled); and

3. Interest accrues on unamortized Lookback balances at the rate of 5.03 percent per year.

BPA proposes to proportionally reduce each IOU's benefits due for FY 2009 such that the aggregate benefit paid, before consideration of any deemer obligations, for all IOUs is 210 million. This amount represents a balance between ensuring that regional residential and small farm consumers receive benefits from the Residential Exchange Program while returning to preference customers the overpayments to IOUs that occurred under the REP settlements. This aggregate benefit is in the middle of the $200 million to $220 million range contained in the Recommendations of Representatives of the Investor-Owned and Certain Consumer-Owned Utilities Regarding the Residential Exchange Benefits for Customers Served by the Pacific Northwest Investor-Owned Utilities dated November 7, 2007. BPA understands that this document enjoys broad, albeit not universal, customer support. BPA views such support as a measure of the reasonableness of its approach to recovering the Lookback Amounts over time.

Table 4 shows FY 2009 REP benefits due and REP benefits paid before consideration of any deemer obligations.

BPA maintains the position that Idaho Power has a substantial deemer balance at the end of FY 2008. BPA is proposing to apply the same treatment to Idaho Power's deemer balance for FY 2009 that was applied when determining the Lookback Amounts for FY 2002-2008. Specifically, REP benefits will first be applied toward deemer balances. Only when Idaho Power's deemer balance is extinguished would REP benefits be available to apply against Lookback Amounts and to provide positive REP benefits to Idaho Power. Based on Idaho Power's current deemer balance and reasonable expectations of future REP benefits, Idaho Power is not expected to amortize its Lookback Amount by 2028. BPA acknowledges that Idaho Power disputes its current deemer balance and has requested to explore with BPA the possibility of settling this dispute.

In summary, BPA's proposal responds to the Court's rulings in several ways to remedy the improper allocation of REP settlement costs to the PF Preference rate. First, the WP-07 Supplemental Proposal results in an average PF Preference rate of $26.2/MWh—about a four percent (4%) reduction from current rates. This proposed reduction results from several changes or revisions to the WP-07 Final Studies. The most significant change is a reduction in the costs of the REP for FY 2009 from about $336 million to $202 million, which includes $39 million of the Lookback Amount.

Second, BPA is determining the magnitude of the Lookback Amounts for FY 2002-2007 that need to be recovered from the region's IOUs and returned to public utilities. BPA proposes to recover this total, approximately $620 million, out of future REP benefits, starting with the $39 million for FY 2009 noted above. BPA proposes that the amount of future Lookback Amounts recovered, and by extension the associated PF rate reduction, will be decided in each subsequent rate case.

Lastly, BPA is proposing to provide public utilities with either a one-time payment or a credit on their power bills for the difference between the REP settlements costs in power rates for FY 2007-2008, and the amount of FY 2007-2008 REP benefits the IOUs would be paid under BPA's proposal. If BPA offers, and preference customers sign, Standstill Payment Agreements, they will receive a portion of this credit in FY 2008 and the remainder in FY 2009. If they do not sign Standstill Payment Agreements, or the agreements are not offered, preference customers will receive the credit in FY 2009. BPA has the financial reserves to provide this FY 2008-2009 payment or credit of about $315 million because BPA has been collecting REP settlement costs in the PF Preference rate but has not been paying benefits to the IOUs since the Court's May, 2007, rulings.

BPA's proposed 2007 Supplemental Wholesale Power Rate Schedules and GRSPs, as well as the Section 7(b)(2) Legal Interpretation and Section 7(b)(2) Implementation Methodology , incorporated by reference as a part of this Notice, are available for viewing and downloading on BPA's Web site at http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase . A copy of the proposed rate schedules and GRSPs are also available for viewing in BPA's Public Reference Room at the BPA Headquarters, 1st Floor, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR.

This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

• January 10, 2008

• Consideration and Referral of Supervisory Strategies and Enforcement Actions

• Merger of Sacramento Valley Farm Credit ACA into Farm Credit West ACA

• Bookletter BL-055—Floor Nomination Procedures for System Associations and Banks

• Funding Approval Report

• Office of Management Services Quarterly Report

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act) added section 414 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 350c), which requires that persons who manufacture, process, pack, hold, receive, distribute, transport, or import food in the United States establish and maintain records identifying the immediate previous sources and immediate subsequent recipients of food. Sections 1.326 through 1.363 (21 CFR 1.326 through 1.363) of FDA's regulations set forth the requirements for recordkeeping and records access. The requirement to establish and maintain records improves FDA's ability to respond to, and further contain, threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals from accidental or deliberate contamination of food.

Description of Respondents: Persons that manufacture, process, pack, hold, receive, distribute, transport, or import food in the United States are required to establish and maintain records, including persons that engage in both interstate and intrastate commerce.

FDA's regulations require that records for non-transporters include the name and full contact information of sources, recipients, and transporters, an adequate description of the food including the quantity and packaging, and the receipt and shipping dates §§ 1.337 and 1.345). Required records for transporters include the names of consignor and consignee, points of origin and destination, date of shipment, number of packages, description of freight, route of movement and name of each carrier participating in the transportation, and transfer points through which shipment moved (§ 1.352). Existing records may be used if they contain all of the required information and are retained for the required time period.

In the Federal Register of November 19, 2007 (72 FR 65033), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

This estimate is based on FDA's estimate of the number of facilities affected by the final rule entitled “Establishment and Maintenance of Records Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,” published in the Federal Register of December 9, 2004 (69 FR 71562 at 71630). With regard to records maintenance, FDA estimates that approximately 379,493 facilities will spend 13.228 hours collecting, recording, and checking for accuracy of the limited amount of additional information required by the regulations, for a total of 5,020,000 hours annually. In addition, FDA estimates that new firms entering the affected businesses will incur a burden from learning the regulatory requirements and understanding the records required for compliance. In this regard, the agency estimates the number of new firms entering the affected businesses to be 5 percent (5%) of 379,493, or 18,975 firms. Thus, FDA estimates that approximately 18,975 facilities will spend 4.790 hours learning about the recordkeeping and records access requirements, for a total of 90,890 hours annually. Therefore, the total annual recordkeeping burden is estimated to be 5,110,890 hours.

FDA intends to take enforcement action to enforce section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 255(a)) against any unapproved colchicine for injection product that does not have a National Drug Code (NDC) number listed with FDA in full compliance with section 510 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360) before February 6, 2008, that is manufactured, shipped, or otherwise introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce by any person 1 on or after February 8, 2008, or against any colchicine for injection product that has an NDC number listed with FDA and is not commercially used or sold in the United States before February 6, 2008, but is manufactured, shipped, or otherwise introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce by any person on or after February 8, 2008.

However, for unapproved colchicine for injection products that are commercially used or sold in the United States and have an NDC number listed with FDA in full compliance with section 510 of the act before February 6, 2008 (“currently marketed and listed”), the agency intends to exercise its enforcement discretion after as identified elsewhere in this document. FDA intends to initiate enforcement action against any currently marketed and listed colchicine for injection product that is manufactured on or after March 10, 2008, or that is shipped, introduced, or delivered for introduction (“shipped”) on or after August 6, 2008. Further, FDA intends to take enforcement action against any person who manufactures or ships such products after the dates set forth previously. Any person who submits a new drug application (NDA) for a colchicine for injection product but has not received approval must comply with this notice. Unapproved colchicine for injection products that are not currently marketed, or that are currently marketed but are not listed with the agency before February 6, 2008 must, as of the date of this notice, have approved applications prior to their introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce.

Colchicine is an alkaloid of the colchicum autumnale plant, also known as autumn crocus or meadow saffron. Colchicum was initially described in the 1st century A.D. by Dioscorides in the Materia Medica . Medical use of colchicum for gout pain dates back to the 6th century. It was used for several centuries, but the use of colchicum in the treatment of gout substantially declined by the 15th century because of its toxicity. Colchicum was reintroduced as a treatment for acute gout beginning in 1763. Colchicine was first isolated from colchicum in 1820 and made available in oral dosage form during the 19th century. Colchicine in oral dosage form is currently available in both as a single ingredient and in combination with probenecid, but these products are not covered by this notice. Colchicine for injection has been available in the United States since the 1950s and has been administered intravenously for the treatment of acute attacks of gout. Because of toxicities associated with the use of intravenous (IV) colchicine and the emergence of safer alternative therapies, IV colchicine is rarely used in current practice for acute gout treatment.

There are currently no approved applications for colchicine for injection products. FDA is aware of only one manufacturer of a currently marketed unapproved colchicine for injection product. This manufacturer has notified the agency that it has ceased manufacturing colchicine for injection.

Serious safety concerns, including fatalities, associated with colchicine for injection products are well documented in the literature and in adverse drug events reported to the agency. Many of these adverse events are caused by colchicine toxicity, which typically occurs in three phases. The initial phase, occurring within 24 hours of administration of a toxic dose of colchicine, is characterized by abdominal pain, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, leukocytosis, hypovolemia, and electrolyte imbalance. The second phase, 2 to 7 days after colchicine administration, involves bone marrow aplasia, coagulopathies, cardiac arrhythmia, renal failure, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, peripheral neuropathy with ascending paralysis, and respiratory distress. If the patient survives, the third phase is a recovery phase involving leukocytosis and alopecia. Overall, FDA is aware of 50 reports of adverse events associated with IV colchicine use, including 23 deaths, through June 2007. 2 Three of these deaths occurred in March and April of 2007 and were associated with the use of compounded IV colchicine. Among the commonly reported events (n=50) that had medical significance were neutropenia, acute renal failure, thrombocytopenia, congestive heart failure, and pancytopenia.

Compared to oral administration of colchicine, there is an increased likelihood of colchicine toxicity when the drug is administered intravenously. For oral dosing in the treatment of acute gout, the dose is usually titrated by administering the drug over time until symptoms resolve or the patient begins to experience side effects, which are typically gastrointestinal. This emergence of side effects during oral dosing provides a margin of safety that often prevents serious and fatal overdoses. In the case of IV administration, side effects are generally not experienced until the patient has already received toxic levels of colchicine. Therefore, extreme care must be exercised when colchicine is administered by this route.

Colchicine is also known to have a narrow therapeutic index, with a narrow margin of safety between doses that are therapeutic in the treatment of gout and doses that are toxic. Many of the adverse events associated with colchicine are dose-related. Overdosing of colchicine, as discussed previously, can result in bone marrow suppression, organ failure, and death. The rate of clearance of colchicine tends to decline in persons with diminished renal or hepatic function. This means that the blood level of colchicine in persons with diminished renal or hepatic function tends to be higher for a longer period of time for a given dose compared to persons with normal renal or hepatic function. The frequency and severity of adverse effects, including colchicine toxicity, may also be greater in these populations.

FDA is generally aware of the use of IV colchicine as a treatment for back pain and that compounding pharmacies often produce colchicine for injection products that are administered intravenously for back pain treatment. FDA has not approved colchicine in any dosage form for the treatment of back pain. FDA's policy regarding the practice of pharmacy compounding is articulated in the Agency's Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 460.200 on Pharmacy Compounding (Pharmacy Compounding CPG). This notice does not affect the applicability or interpretation of the Pharmacy Compounding CPG.

FDA wants to underscore that there are serious risks associated with IV colchicine products, because there is a limited margin of safety due to both the narrow therapeutic index and serious toxicity of colchicine. Any dosing errors with the administration of IV colchicine could have potentially serious and fatal consequences.

Based on the safety considerations described previously, colchicine for injection products are not generally recognized as safe and effective under section 201(p) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(p)) for the treatment or prevention of gout or any other condition. Therefore, an injectable drug product containing colchicine, alone or in combination with other drugs, is regarded as a new drug as defined in section 201(p) of the act and is subject to the requirements of section 505 of the act. As set forth in this notice, approval of an NDA or an abbreviated new drug application under section 505 of the act is required as a condition for manufacturing or marketing all colchicine for injection products. After the dates identified in this notice, FDA intends to take enforcement action as described in this notice against any person who is marketing or shipping unapproved colchicine for injection products. Any person who submits an NDA for a colchicine for injection product but has not received approval must comply with this notice. Furthermore, this notice does not affect the applicability or interpretation of the Pharmacy Compounding CPG.

This notice does not affect the legal status of products containing colchicine in oral dosage forms, which FDA intends to address at a later date.

Although not required to do so by the Administrative Procedure Act, the act, or any rules issued under its authority, or for any other legal reason, FDA is providing this notice to persons who are marketing unapproved colchicine for injection products that the agency intends to take enforcement action against such products and those who market them or cause them to be marketed or shipped in interstate commerce. Consistent with the priorities identified in the agency's CPG Sec. 440.100 entitled “Marketed Unapproved Drugs--Compliance Policy Guide” (Marketed Unapproved Drugs CPG), the agency is taking action at this time against unapproved colchicine for injection products because, as described in section III of this notice, colchicine for injection is a drug with significant safety risks.

Manufacturing or shipping unapproved colchicine for injection products can result in enforcement action, including seizure, injunction, or other judicial or administrative proceeding. Consistent with policies described in the Marketed Unapproved Drugs CPG, the agency does not expect to issue a warning letter or any other further warning to firms marketing unapproved colchicine for injection products prior to taking enforcement action. The agency also reminds firms that, as stated in the Marketed Unapproved Drugs CPG, any unapproved drug marketed without a required approved drug application is subject to agency enforcement action at any time. The issuance of this notice does not in any way obligate the agency to issue similar notices or any notice in the future regarding marketed unapproved drugs. 3

As described in the Marketed Unapproved Drugs CPG, the agency may, at its discretion, identify a period of time during which the agency does not intend to initiate an enforcement action against a currently marketed unapproved drug solely on the grounds that it lacks an approved application under section 505 of the act. With respect to unapproved colchicine for injection products, the agency intends to exercise its enforcement discretion for only a limited period of time for the following reasons: (1) Colchicine for injection is a drug with significant safety risks, (2) colchicine is available in an oral dosage form for those patients for whom use of the drug is medically necessary, and (3) colchicine in combination with probenecid as an oral tablet has FDA approval and is indicated for the treatment of gout. Therefore, the agency intends to implement this notice as identified elsewhere in this document.

FDA intends to take enforcement action to enforce section 505(a) of the act against any unapproved colchicine for injection product that is not listed in full compliance with section 510 of the act before February 6, 2008, that is manufactured, shipped, or otherwise introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce by any person on or after February 8, 2008, or is not currently marketed but is subsequently manufactured, shipped, or otherwise introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce by any person on or after February 8, 2008.

However, for currently marketed and listed unapproved colchicine for injection products, the agency intends to exercise its enforcement discretion after February 8, 2008, as identified elsewhere in this document. FDA intends to initiate enforcement action against any currently marketed and listed colchicine for injection product that is manufactured on or after March 10, 2008, or that is shipped on or after August 6, 2008 4 . Further, FDA intends to take enforcement action against any person who manufactures or ships such products after the dates set forth previously. Any person who submits an NDA for a colchicine for injection product but has not received approval must comply with this notice.

The agency, however, does not intend to exercise its enforcement discretion as outlined previously if the following apply: (1) A manufacturer or distributor of an unapproved injectable colchicine product covered by this notice is violating other provisions of the act, including but not limited to, violations related to FDA's current good manufacturing practices, adverse drug event reporting, misbranding, or other violations, or (2) it appears that a firm, in response to this notice, increases its manufacture or interstate shipment of injectable colchicine drug products above its usual volume during these periods.

Nothing in this notice, including FDA's intent to exercise its enforcement discretion, alters any person's liability or obligations in any other enforcement action, or precludes the agency from initiating or proceeding with enforcement action in connection with any other alleged violation of the act, whether or not related to an unapproved drug product covered by this notice. Similarly, a person who is or becomes enjoined from marketing unapproved drugs may not resume marketing of unapproved injectable colchicine products based on FDA's exercise of enforcement discretion as set forth in this notice.

Drug manufacturers and distributors should be aware that the agency is exercising its enforcement discretion as described previously only in regard to colchicine for injection products that are marketed under an NDC number listed with the agency before February 6, 2008. As previously stated, unapproved colchicine for injection products that are currently marketed and not listed with the agency on the date of this notice must, as of the effective date of this notice, have approved applications prior to their shipment in interstate commerce. Moreover, any person or firm that submits an NDA but has yet to receive approval for such products is still responsible for full compliance with this notice.

Some firms may have previously discontinued the manufacturing or distribution of products covered by this notice without removing them from the listing of their products under section 510(j) of the act. Other firms may discontinue manufacturing or marketing listed products in response to this notice. Firms that wish to notify the agency of product discontinuation should send a letter, signed by the firm's chief executive officer, fully identifying the discontinued product(s), including NDC number(s), and stating that the product(s) has (have) been discontinued and will not be marketed again without FDA approval. The letter should be sent to Jennifer Devine, (see ADDRESSES ). Firms should also update the listing of their products under section 510(j) of the act to reflect discontinuation of unapproved colchicine for injection products. FDA plans to rely on its existing records, the results of a subsequent inspection, or other available information when it initiates enforcement action.

This notice is issued under the act (sections 502 (21 U.S.C. 352)) and 505 and under authority delegated to the Deputy Commissioner for Policy under section 1410.10 of the FDA Staff Manual Guide.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated January 30, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael H. Smith, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

The following areas of the State of Indiana have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 1, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas A. Hall, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

The following areas of the State of Kansas have been designated as adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described below. This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Tribal Colleges and Universities Program.

OMB Approval Number: 2528-0215.

Form Numbers: SF-424, SF-424-Supplement, HUD-424-CB, SFLL, HUD-27300, HUD-2880, HUD-2990, HUD-2993, HUD-2944-A, HUD-96010, HUD-96011.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Grants to assist Tribal Collection and Universities (TCU) to build, expand, renovate, and equip their own facilities, and to expand the role of the TCUs into the community through the provision of needed services such as health programs, job training, and economic development activities.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion, quarterly, annually.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 1710.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Management Review of Public Housing Projects.

OMB Control Number: 2577—Pending.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: On September 19, 2005 (70 FR 54983), HUD published a final rule amending the regulations of the Public Housing Operating Fund Program at 24 CFR part 990, which was developed through negotiated rulemaking. Part 990 provides a new formula for distributing operating subsidy to public housing agencies (PHAs) and establishes requirements for PHAs to convert to asset management.

Subpart H of the part 990 regulations (§§ 990.255 to 990.290) establishes the requirements regarding asset management. Under § 990.260(a), PHAs that own and operate 250 or more dwelling rental units must operate using an asset management model consistent with the subpart H regulations. However, for the current fiscal year, that regulation is superseded by section 225 of Title II of Division K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161 (approved December 26, 2007). Under that law, PHAs that own or operate 400 or fewer units may elect to transition to asset management, but they are not required to do so.

To support the transition to asset management and align HUD oversight with asset management, a new management review format is required to review PHAs on a project level, rather than PHA-wide. The forms are modeled after the asset management model consistent with the management norms in the broader multifamily industry.

Agency form numbers: Forms HUD-5834, HUD-5834-A, and HUD-5834-B.

Members of affected public: Public housing agencies.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents: For form HUD-5834, Management Review of Public Housing Projects, there are 3,282 respondents annually with one response per respondent. Average time per response is .95 hours and the total burden hours are 3,118 hours. For form HUD-5834-A, Tenant File Review, there are 821 respondents annually with one response per respondent. Average time per response is .50 hours and the total burden hours are 410.50 hours. For form HUD-5834-B, Upfront Income Verification Review, there are 821 respondents annually with one response per respondent. Average time per response is .50 hours and the total burden hours are 410.50 hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: New collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 34, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Enhance the certification and funding of State and local fair housing enforcement agencies, (2) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (3) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Title of Proposal: Certification and Funding of State and Local Fair Housing Enforcement Agencies.

Office: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

OMB Control Number: 2529-0005.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use:

State and local fair housing enforcement agencies that are seeking certification in accordance with Section 810(f) of the federal Fair Housing Act (the FHA) submit a request to the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The request must be supported by the text of the jurisdiction's fair housing law, the law creating and empowering the agency, all laws referenced in the jurisdiction's fair housing law, any regulations and directives issued under the law, and any formal opinions of the State Attorney General or the chief legal officer of the jurisdiction that pertain to the jurisdiction's fair housing law. A request shall also include organizational information of the agency responsible for administering and enforcing the law.

Once agencies are participating in the FHAP, HUD collects sufficient information to monitor agency performance in accordance with 24 CFR 115.206, which sets forth the performance standards for agencies participating in the FHAP. These standards are meant to ensure that the state or local law, both “on its face” and “in operation,” provides substantive rights, procedures, remedies, and judicial review procedures for alleged discriminatory housing practices that are substantially equivalent to those provided in the FHA. In addition, HUD collects sufficient information to monitor agency compliance with 24 CFR 115.307 and 24 CFR 115.308, which set forth requirements for FHAP participation and reporting and record keeping requirements including, but not limited to, the requirement that FHAP agencies use HUD's official complaint data information system, and input complaint processing information into that system in a timely manner.

Frequency of Submission: The Department estimates that requests for substantial equivalence will have the following reporting burdens:

The Department estimates that reporting information related to agency performance will have the following reporting burdens: