Idaho Power Company has submitted ROW applications to construct, operate, and maintain a 500kV single circuit overhead electric transmission line on Federal lands. The purpose and need of the Project is to relieve existing congestion, capacity, and reliability constraints and allow for the delivery of up to 1500 megawatts (MW) of additional energy to target service areas principally in Idaho and Utah. The proposed project begins near Boardman, Oregon, just north of the Boardman Power Plant, at the newly proposed Boardman Substation. The Project route continues southeast to interconnect with the Hemingway Substation in southeastern Oregon. The Hemingway Substation is being planned and built separately from this Project and will be built regardless of the outcome of this Project so the Hemingway Substation will not be analyzed in this EIS. The Project route then proceeds southeast and terminates near Melba, Idaho, at the newly proposed Sand Hollow Substation. The proposed route is approximately 278 miles long. The requested ROW width is 250 feet. Idaho Power Company proposes to utilize steel lattice type structures approximately 150 feet in height with average spans between towers of 1200 feet. Access roads would be approximately 14 to 20 feet wide. Additional temporary work space would also be required during construction. Approximately 195 miles or 70 percent of the route is privately owned; 45 miles or 16 percent is administered by the BLM; 27 miles or 10 percent is administered by the USFS; and 11 miles or 4 percent is administered by the State of Oregon or other jurisdictions.

The route generally parallels Interstate 84 and other existing overhead and underground utilities and roadways. The proposed route also makes use of existing or proposed utility corridors on Federal lands. The BLM is the designated lead Federal agency for preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies identified at this time include: USFS, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and the State of Oregon Department of Energy. Other agencies will be invited to participate as cooperating agencies. The EIS will analyze the proposed action and a reasonable range of route alternatives. The BLM and USFS encourage you to send your comments concerning the Project as currently proposed, feasible alternative locations, possible mitigation measures, and any other information relevant to the Project. Authorization of the Project may require amendments to one or more of the following BLM land use plans: Baker Resource Management Plan, Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan, Owyhee Resource Management Plan, Cascade Resource Management Plan, and one or more of the following USFS Forest Plans: Wallowa-Whitman Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. This notice serves to notify the public of these potential land use plan amendments as required by 43 CFR 1610.2 (c) and 36 CFR 219.7(c). If a land use plan amendment is determined to be required, the BLM and/or USFS will integrate the land use planning process into the NEPA analysis for this Project. Public input is important to ensure project-specific issues are evaluated prior to the agencies making a decision. Comments submitted timely will be considered in the NEPA process. Comments received after November 14, 2008 will be considered to the extent feasible. Please note that public comments and information submitted including names, street addresses, and e-mail addresses of respondents will be available for public review and disclosure at the above address during normal business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Periodic project updates during preparation of the EIS will be provided to the public through additional informational meetings, newsletters, postcard notices, or through the project Web site.

The purpose of this project is to respond to an application for a special use authorization submitted by White Pines Wind Farm LLC to develop a wind farm on National Forest System lands within the Huron-Manistee National Forests. White Pines Wind Farm LLC proposes to generate 50 to 70 MW of wind energy by constructing and operating between 20 and 28 wind turbines, in proximity to existing distribution facilities (utility grid), in an area with an adequate wind resource on National Forest System lands with consolidated ownership. The proposed project is needed to help meet Michigan's and the region's growing demand for reliable sources of clean, cost-effective, renewable energy. The project is consistent with the Huron-Manistee National Forests' Land and Resource Management Plan and with Forest Service objectives for management of special uses on National Forest System lands.

White Pines is proposing to install and operate the Project on land located mostly within the boundaries of the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The Project proposes construction of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure in April 2010, with an anticipated in-service date of December 2010, and operation of the facility for an estimated service life of 30 years.

The vast majority of the Project's facilities and activities would occur on National Forest System lands on the Cadillac-Manistee Ranger District of the Forest. A portion of the Project's transmission line route would be located off of National Forest System lands. In addition, it would be necessary to expand the public road system to support development of the Project.

The Project would consist of the construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of 28 new state-of-the-art 2.5 MW wind turbines, which would have a combined power generating capacity of 70 MW (at peak capacity). The Project is proposing to use the Clipper Class II Liberty Series 2.5 MW Wind Turbine, which are manufactured domestically in Iowa. It is feasible that a higher megawatt turbine could become available and be utilized for this Project. If available in the future, turbines with a larger capacity would be located within the existing array plan footprint and would not affect the overall maximum Project power generating capacity of 70 MW.

Each turbine is comprised of three components—the tower, the nacelle, and the rotor blades. The turbines use a tubular steel tower, with a hub height of 262 feet. The tower is topped by the nacelle, which houses the turbine's mechanical components. The rotor, mounted on the nacelle, consists of three fiberglass blades 153 feet in length and has a rotor diameter of 315 feet. The total height of the wind turbines would be approximately 420 feet above a concrete foundation base. Each turbine would be anchored to a 60 foot diameter concrete foundation of which a 20-foot diameter pedestal would be visible above ground. A pad mounted step-up transformer would be located on each concrete foundation base to increase the voltage from each wind turbine generator to 34.5 kilovolt (kV). The area of the total disturbed footprint per turbine, including clearing and grubbing of vegetation, would have a radius of approximately 125 feet, for an aggregate footprint of about 1.1 acres per wind turbine foundation during construction. Subsequent to construction, the turbine footprint area would be reduced to less than 0.2 acres.

In addition to the turbines, the Project would consist of the following components:

• Approximately 9 miles of road reconstruction to existing roads (3 miles of Forest Service roads and 6 miles of County roads) and approximately 5 miles of new road construction would occur on NFS lands. During construction of the Project, these roads would be widened and cleared to approximately 40 feet to allow for equipment delivery and crane transport between turbine locations. However, to allow for the installation of the collection system and drainage, some of these roads may be cleared to approximately 80 feet. Road reclamation and revegetation would be performed at the end of construction to reduce access roads to standards mutually agreed upon with the appropriate road agencies ( i.e. , Forest Service and Mason County). Roads would remain accessible, to the extent practicable, to the public. The new roads for the Project would be permanent roads added to the road system on NFS lands.

• Installation of over 40 miles of 34.5 kV underground electrical interconnections between turbines to collect and deliver electricity to a new substation. Where practicable, the underground electrical collection system would be installed along the same right-of-way (RoW) corridor as the access roads. In addition, fiber optic communication lines would be installed along with the electrical collection system to monitor the operation of the wind farm. No additional clearing beyond that described for the roadway clearing would be required for the installation of the electrical collection system and fiber optic lines between turbines.

• A step-up transformer at each turbine location plus one transformer for the electrical substation site. Each step-up transformer would be located on the concrete foundation base.

• An electrical substation on a 5-acre parcel would be constructed on NFS lands within the Project Area to step up the electrical collection system voltage to the existing local transmission line voltage.

• An above ground, 138 kV transmission line to connect the proposed wind farm substation to the existing Pere Marquette-Stronach 138-kV transmission line running north-south and located east of the Project Area. The transmission line would have a RoW corridor of approximately 150 feet. Approximately 3 miles of the transmission line would be located on NFS lands and approximately 2 miles of the line would cross private lands.

• Three 199-foot tall meteorological monitoring towers have been constructed and are currently collecting data within the Project Area boundary. At the completion of the Project, 1 to 3 meteorological towers would remain within the Project Area during the life of the Project.

• Three temporary staging areas would be located within the Project Area for construction-related temporary facilities, which include a concrete batch plant and cleared areas for construction parking, equipment laydown, and construction management trailers. These areas, totaling approximately 10 acres, would be restored and revegetated upon completion of construction.

• A second electrical substation would be needed at the end of the 138 kV transmission line to tie into the existing 138 kV overhead transmission line. This substation would be located on private land outside of the Project Area.

In addition to these facilities, the Project development process would also involve upgrading local transportation infrastructure to accommodate the expected size of construction materials. At this time, it is anticipated that the infrastructure upgrades would be minor in scale (e.g., increased turning radius at road intersections).

The Project area boundary encompasses a total of approximately 10,024 acres, of which 8,600 acres are within the NFS lands within the Cadillac-Manistee Ranger District. The Project components described above would be sited within this Project Area boundary and would occupy a permanent footprint of approximately 75 acres of NFS lands. Consideration of species management and habitat, water resources, cultural resources, visuals, public access and safety, maximization of existing facilities, and the layout of buried and above ground facilities have been incorporated as part of the Project design to the extent practicable and would be evaluated through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) site-specific environmental analysis process.

Barry Paulson, Forest Supervisor, Huron-Manistee National Forests, 1755 S. Mitchell Street, Cadillac, MI 49601.

White Pines Wind Farm LLC has submitted an application to the Forest Service for a Special Use authorization seeking approval to occupy and use NFS lands for the purpose of constructing and operating a wind power facility on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. The decision to be made is whether to grant the authorization for the construction and operation activities as proposed, or as modified by an alternative to the proposed action, or to deny granting the authorization.

The Forest Service plans to scope for information by contacting persons and organizations interested or potentially affected by the proposed action by using mailings, public announcements, and personal contacts. In addition, two separate public scoping meetings will be held to collect public input on the scope of this project:

Scoping Meeting #1: September 30, 2008, at the Ramada Inn, 4079 W. U.S. 10, Ludington, MI. An open house format will be used. The public is welcome between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.

Scoping Meeting #2: October 1, 2008, at the Days Inn, 1462 U.S. Hwy. 31, Manistee, MI. An open house format will be used. The public is welcome between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The primary purpose of scoping is to gather public comments, issues, and concerns regarding the proposed action. We are especially interested in information that might identify a specific undesired result of implementing the proposed action. Comments will be used to help formulate alternatives to the proposed action. Please make your written comments as specific as possible as they relate to the proposed action, and include your name, address, and if possible, telephone number and e-mail address. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decisions under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any persons may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that under FOIA confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality and, should the request be denied, return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 90 days.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register . The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, that it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

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.

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 additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in allowing other small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

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

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On July 18, 2008, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (73 FR 41313) of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

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

2. The action may result in allowing other small entities to furnish the 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 service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

Service Type/Location: Mailroom Operations, Customs and Border Protection Laguna Niguel Facilities, 24000 Avila Road, Laguna Niguel, CA.

NPA: Landmark Services, Inc., Santa Ana, CA.

Contracting Activity: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, National Acquisition Center.

On May 20, 2008, notice was published in the Federal Register (73 FR 29111) that a request for a public display permit to import one male adult beluga whale from the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Center, British Columbia, Canada to Sea World of Texas, had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

On June 12, 2008, notice was published in the Federal Register (73 FR 33399) that a request for a scientific research permit had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The permit authorizes the importation of brain tissues from 40 baikal seals ( Phoca sibirica ). These samples were collected in 2005 under a joint agreement between the East-Siberian Research and Production Fisheries Center (Russia) and the Center for Marine Environmental Studies (Japan). The purpose of this study is to determine: (1) the types and amounts of heavy metals that baikal seals accumulate in specific brain regions; and (2) whether these exposures are a neurotoxicological concern by using novel biomarker technologies. This permit will expire one year from date of issuance.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

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

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

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

On April 10, 2008, NMFS received an application from L-DEO for the taking, by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of 20 species of marine mammals incidental to conducting, under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF), a marine seismic survey in the Gulf of Alaska during September, 2008. The purpose of the research program was outlined in NMFS' notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 45407, August 5, 2008).

The seismic survey will involve one source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. Langseth ( Langseth ), which will occur offshore from the Saint Elias Mountains. The Langseth will deploy an array of 36 airguns (6,600 in 3 ) as an energy source and, at times, a receiving system consisting of a 8-km (5-mi) towed hydrophone streamer and/or Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBSs). The streamer will be towed at a depth of 7 m (23 ft). The OBSs are housed in 43-cm diameter glass spheres that have a gross weight of approximately 45 kg (99 lbs). As the airgun array is towed along the survey lines, the hydrophone streamer and/or OBSs will receive the returning acoustic signals and transfer the data to the on-board processing system.

The Langseth is expected to depart Astoria, Oregon on approximately September 10, 2008 for the study area in the GOA (see Figure 1 of L-DEO's application). The airgun array is expected to operate for a total of ~200-250 hours. With OBS deployment and retrieval, the length of the survey will be ~18 days. The overall area within which the STEEP survey will take place is located at ~58-60.5° N, 138-146° W (see Figure 1 of L-DEO's application). The proposed survey will be conducted in water depths from <100 m to >3,000 m (<330 to >9,840 ft) entirely within the territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United States. The exact dates of the activities depend upon logistics, as well as weather conditions and/or the need to repeat some lines if data quality is substandard.

The primary marine seismic survey will consist of two long transect lines that will cross each other (Figure 1 of L-DEO's application). For the longer line paralleling the shoreline, a seismic reflection-refraction profile will be shot using the hydrophone streamer as well as 25 OBSs deployed on the seafloor and 60 Texan seismometers deployed on land across the toe of the Bering Glacier. A reflection-refraction profile will also be obtained from the slightly shorter line that is perpendicular to the shoreline using the hydrophone streamer as well as 17 OBSs; this line will be shot twice if time allows. Both of these lines will have a shot spacing of 50 m (164 ft, 20 seconds); if the onshore-offshore line is shot twice, the shot interval used during the second run will be 150 m (492 ft, 60 s). During the reflection-refraction profiling, the airgun array will be towed at a depth of 9 m. In addition, two reflection-only 2-dimensional (2-D) seismic grids will be shot; the western grid is located approximately 150 km (93 mi) from shore whereas the eastern grid is located nearshore (see Figure 1 in L-DEO's application). The shot spacing for these grids will be 50 m (164 ft) and the airgun array will be towed at a depth of 9 m. No OBSs will be deployed during reflection-only profiling. There will be additional operations associated with equipment testing, startup, line changes, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In L-DEO's calculations, 25 percent has been added to the line total for those additional operations.

The planned seismic survey (excluding the 25 percent contingency) will consist of 1,909 km of survey lines including turns (see Figure 1 in L-DEO's application). Most of this effort (923 km or 574 mi) will take place in intermediate water depths of 100-1,000 m and in water depths >1,000 m deep (812 km or 504 mi), and a smaller portion (174 km or 108 mi) will take place in water <100 m deep.

All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be conducted by L-DEO with on-board assistance by the scientists who have proposed the study. The scientific team is headed by Dr. Sean Gullick of the University of Texas at Austin Institute for Geophysics (UTIG) and also includes Drs. G. Christesen, P. Mann, and H. Van Avendonk of UTIG. The vessel will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel for the entire cruise.

In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a multibeam echosounder (MBES) will be operated from the Langseth continuously throughout the STEEP cruise. Also, a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) will be operated by the Langseth during most of the survey.

A more detailed description of the authorized action, including vessel and acoustic source specifications, was included in the proposed IHA notice (73 FR 45407, August 5, 2008).

L-DEO estimated the safety radii around their operations using a model and by adjusting the model results based on empirical data gathered in the Gulf of Mexico in 2003. Additional information regarding safety radii in general, how the safety radii were calculated, and how the empirical measurements were used to correct the modeled numbers may be found in NMFS' proposed IHA notice (73 FR 45407, August 5, 2008) and Section I and Appendix A of L-DEO's application. Using the modeled distances and various correction factors, Table 1 outlines the distances at which three rms sound levels (190 dB, 180 dB, and 160 dB) are expected to be received from the various airgun configurations in shallow, intermediate, and deep water depths.

A notice of receipt of the L-DEO application and proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2008 ( 73 FR 45407). During the comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). NMFS also received one comment from a private citizen. Following are the comments from the Commission, a private citizen, the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), and NMFS' responses.

Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS provide additional justification for its proposed determination that the planned monitoring program will be sufficient to detect, with reasonable confidence, all marine mammals within or entering the identified safety zones; as such monitoring is essential for determining whether animals are being taken in unanticipated ways and unexpected numbers.

Response: NMFS believes that the planned monitoring program will be sufficient to detect (using visual detection and PAM), with reasonable certainty, most marine mammals within or entering identified safety zones. This monitoring, along with the required mitigation measures (see below), will result in the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

The Langseth is utilizing a team of trained marine mammal observers (MMOs) to both visually monitor from the high observation tower of the Langseth and to conduct passive acoustic monitoring (PAM). However, there are limitations on marine mammal detection, and ramp-ups are required as a mitigation measure due to these limitations. This monitoring, along with the required mitigation measures (see below), will result in the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and will result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

When stationed on the observation platform of the Langseth , the eye level will be approximately 17.8 m (58.4 ft) above sea level, so the visible distance (in good weather) to the horizon is 8.9 nm (16.5 km; the largest safety radii is 2.4 nm, 4.4 km). Big eyes are most effective at scanning the horizon (for blows), while 7 x 50 reticle binoculars are more effective closer in (MMOs also use a naked eye scan). Night vision devices (NVDs) will be used in low light situations. Additionally, MMOs will have a good view in all directions around the entire vessel. Also, nearly 90 percent of the survey transect lines are in intermediate or deep water depths, where the safety radii are all less than 1 nm (1.9 km).

Theoretical detection distance of this PAM system is tens of kilometers. The PAM is operated both during the day and at night. Though it depends on the lights on the ship, the sea state, and thermal factors, MMOs estimated that visual detection is effective out to between 150 and 250 m (492 and 820 ft) using NVDs and about 30 m (98.4 ft) with the naked eye. However, the PAM operates equally as effectively at night as during the day, especially for sperm whales and dolphins.

The PAM has reliable detection rates out to 3 km (1.6 nm) and more limited ability out to 10s of km. The largest 180-dB safety radii (3.7 km, 2 nm), which is the radii within which the Langseth is required to shut down if a marine mammal enters, are found when the 36-gun array is operating in shallow water at a 9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth. Only 174 km (9 percent) of the total 1,909 km survey lines of the planned seismic survey (excluding 25 percent contingency) will take place in water less than 100 m deep (shallow water). The species most likely to be encountered in the waters of the Gulf of Alaska are Dall's porpoise and Pacific white-sided dolphins, which have relatively larger group sizes (2-20 animals for Dall's porpoises but even higher in some areas of the survey, 10-100 or more animals per group for Pacific white-sided dolphins), are not cryptic at the surface, and have relatively short dive times (6 minutes for dolphins), all which generally make them easier to visually detect. Other species that are likely to be encountered during the seismic survey include humpback, fin, and killer whales, have relatively long dive times; however, they are not cryptic at the surface, have large blows and distinct physical features, all which generally make them easier to visually detect. Furthermore, the vocalizations of most of these species are easily detected by the PAM. During the Maurice Ewing cruise in the GOM in 2003, MMOs detected marine mammals at a distance of approximately 10 km (5.4 nm) from the vessel and identified them to species level at approximately 5 km (2.7 nm) from the vessel, though the bridge of that vessel was only 11 m (36 ft) above the water (vs. the Langseth , which is more than 17 m (55.8 ft) above sea level). All of the 180-dB safety radii for other water depths and tow depths and for the single 40 in 3 airgun to be used during ramp-ups and power-downs (see below) are less than 2 km (1.1 nm).

The likelihood of visual detection at night is significantly lower than during the day, though the PAM remains just as effective at night as during the day. However, the Langseth will not be starting up the airguns unless the safety range is visible for the entire 30 minutes prior (i.e., not an night), and therefore in all cases at night, the airguns will already be operating, which NMFS believes will cause many cetaceans to avoid the vessel, which therefore will reduce the number likely to come within the safety radii. Additionally, all of the safety radii in intermediate and deep water depths are smaller than 3 km (1.6 nm) and fall easily within the reliable detection capabilities of the PAM.

Comment 2: The Commission recommends that observations be made during ramp-up procedures to gather data on its effectiveness as a mitigation measure.

Response: The IHA requires that MMOs on the Langseth make observations for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up, during all ramp-ups, and during all daytime seismic operations and record the following information when a marine mammal is sighted:

(I) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and behavioral pace; and

(ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operations and whether in state of ramp-up or power-down), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare.

These requirements should provide information regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, provided animals are detected during ramp-up.

Comment 3: The Commission recommends that the monitoring period prior to the initiation of seismic activities and to the resumption of airgun activities after a power-down be extended to one hour.

Response: As the Commission points out, several species of deep-diving cetaceans are capable of remaining underwater for more than 30 minutes. However, for the following reasons, NMFS believes that 30 minutes is an adequate length for the monitoring period prior to the start-up of airguns: (1) because the Langseth is required to ramp-up, the time monitoring prior to start-up of any but the smallest array is effectively longer than 30 minutes (i.e., ramp-up will begin with the smallest gun in the array and airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding approximately 6 dB per 5-min period over a total duration of 20-40 min); (2) in many cases MMOs are making observations during times when sonar is not being operated and will actually be observing the area prior to the 30-min observation period anyway; (3) many of the species that may be exposed do not stay underwater more than 30 min; and (4) all else being equal and if a deep diving individual happened to be in the area in the short time immediately prior to the pre-start-up monitoring, if an animal's maximum underwater time is 45 minutes, there is only a 1 in 3 chance that its last random surfacing would be prior to the beginning of the required 30 min- monitoring period.

Comment 4: A member of the public opposes the issuance of permits to allow killing of marine mammals.

Response: NMFS does not believe that the authorized activities will result in the death of any marine mammals, nor does this IHA authorize any marine mammal mortality.

Comment 5: CRE states that there is no accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the GOA IHA, instead, there is only an EA. CRE asks NMFS if there is any continuing plan to prepare an EIS for the Langseth .

Response: A Draft Programmatic EIS (Draft PEIS) is being prepared by NSF (not NMFS) for future seismic surveys on the Langseth . However, NMFS is a cooperating agency under NEPA in its preparation. It is NMFS' intention that the Draft PEIS currently being developed will be used to support, in whole, or in part, future MMPA actions relating to academic research on seismic surveys.

Comment 6: CRE asks NMFS if there is any continuing plan to use the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM) for the Langseth .

Response: The use of AIM remains proposed for NSF's Draft PEIS to address potential impacts related to marine seismic research. Preparation of that EIS continues, and public comments will be solicited when the Draft PEIS is published. AIM was developed by and is proprietary to Marine Acoustics, Inc. The commentor correctly notes that this particular IHA application does not use AIM. This application was prepared for NSF, L-DEO, and NMFS by LGL, Ltd., Environmental Research Associates (LGL). In the application for the proposed seismic operations, LGL notes that it is using the line transect method to estimate marine mammal exposures and determine exclusion zones, consistent with applications for recent previous NSF-funded research seismic cruises.

Comment 7: CRE requests that be any opportunity for public comment on AIM before NMFS issues AIM for the Langseth or for any other purpose.

Response: The NSF Draft PEIS will make the use of AIM available for public comment. AIM itself will not be available for public comment as it is proprietary.

Comment 8: CRE states that the GOA IHA application and the accompanying EA rely on both visual observers and PAM to monitor compliance with seismic safety radii requirements. Neither the IHA application nor the EA contain a record demonstrating that PAM is accurate and reliable for this purpose. CRE asks NMFS whether there is a record demonstrating PAM is sufficiently accurate and reliable to monitor compliance with seismic safety radii requirements and whether there is an opportunity for public comment on that subject.

Response: It is unclear what the commentor means by the phrase “monitor compliance with seismic safety radii requirements.” NMFS believes that visual observers and PAM are effective tools for monitoring marine mammals in the affected area during the seismic survey. PAM is required for monitoring on the Langseth (when practicable), but not for the implementation of mitigation measures. PAM is used by MMOs and the bioacoustician aboard the Langseth for the detection of vocalizing marine mammals. Any confirmed marine mammal vocalization detections using PAM are communicated to the visual observer(s) on watch to help alert the visual observers to the presence of vocalizing marine mammals in the survey area (not necessarily the safety radii). The use of PAM is therefore used in aid of the visual observers, who monitor the safety radii for presence of marine mammals. The detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the array in turn triggers mitigation requirements.

A total of 18 cetacean species, 3 species of pinnipeds, and the northern sea otter are known to or may occur in the GOA study area. Several of the species that may occur in the project area are listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), including the sperm, humpback, North Pacific right whale, fin, and blue whale and the western stock of Steller sea lions. The eastern stock of Steller sea lions are listed at Threatened. Neither the southcentral and southeast Alaska population stocks of northern sea otters ( Enhydra lutris kenyoni ) are listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA nor depleted under the MMPA. The northern sea otter is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and therefore is not considered further in this analysis. There is little information on the distribution of marine mammals inhabiting the waters offshore of SE Alaska or the eastern GOA, although a few reports are available (e.g., Buckland et al. , 1993; Hobbs and Lerczak, 1993; Straley et al. , 1995; Calambokidis et al. , 1997; MacLean and Koski, 2005; Angliss and Outlaw, 2007).

Table 2 outlines the species, their habitat and abundance in the project area, and the estimated exposure levels. Additional information regarding the status and distribution of the marine mammals in the area and how the densities were calculated was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 45407, August 5, 2008) and may be found in L-DEO's application.

The effects of sounds from airguns might include one or more of the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral disturbances, and at least in theory, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al. , 1995; Gordon et al. , 2004; Nowacek et al. , 2007; Southall et al. , 2007). Permanent hearing impairment, in the unlikely event that it occurred, would constitute injury, but temporary threshold shift (TTS) is not an injury (Southall et al. , 2007). With the possible exception of some cases of TTS in harbor seals, it is unlikely that the project would result in any cases of temporary impairment, or any significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Some behavioral disturbance is expected, but this would be localized and short-term. Also, behavioral disturbance is expected to be limited to relatively short distances.

The notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 45407, August 5, 2008) included a discussion of the effects of sounds from airguns on mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds, including tolerance, masking, behavioral disturbance, hearing impairment, and other non-auditory physical effects. Additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels can be found in Appendix B of L-DEO's application.

The notice of the proposed IHA also included a discussion of the potential effects of the multibeam echosounder (MBES) and the sub-bottom profiler (SBP). Because of the shape of the beams of these sources and their power, NMFS believes it unlikely that marine mammals will be exposed to either the MBES or the SBP at levels at or above those likely to cause harassment. Further, NMFS believes that the brief exposure of cetaceans or pinnipeds to few signals from the multi-beam bathymetric sonar system is not likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals.

The notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 45407, August 5, 2008) included an in-depth discussion of the methods used to calculate the densities of the marine mammals in the area of the seismic survey and the take estimates. Additional information was included in L-DEO's application. A summary is included here.

All anticipated “takes by harassment” authorized by this IHA are Level B harassment only, involving temporary changes in behavior. The mitigation measures are expected to minimize the possibility of injurious takes. Take calculations were based on maximum exposure estimates (based on maximum density estimates) vs. best estimates and are based on the 160-dB isopleth of a larger array of airguns. Given these considerations, the predicted number of marine mammals that might be exposed to sounds 160 dB may be somewhat overestimated.

There are few systematic data on the numbers and distributions of marine mammals in SE Alaska and the GOA. Zerbini et al. (2003, 2006, 2007) conducted vessel-based surveys in the northern and western GOA from the Kenai Peninsula to the central Aleutian Islands during July-August 2001-2003. Killer whales were the principal target of the surveys, but the abundance and distribution of fin, humpback, and minke whales were also reported. Waite (2003) conducted vessel-based surveys in the northern and western GOA from Prince William Sound (PWS) to approximately 160° W off Alaska Peninsula during 26 June- 15 July 2003; cetaceans recorded included small odontocetes, beaked whales, and mysticetes. The eastern part of Zerbini et al. surveys and Waite's survey were confined to water <1,000 m deep, and most effort was in depths <100 m. Dahlheim et al. (2000) conducted aerial surveys of the nearshore waters from Bristol Bay to Dixon Entrance for harbor porpoises; SE Alaska was surveyed during 1-26 June 1993. Dahlheim and Towell (1994) conducted vessel-based surveys of Pacific white-sided dolphins in the inland waterways of SE Alaska during April-May, June or July, and September- early October of 1991-1993. In a report on a seismic cruise in SE Alaska from Dixon Entrance to Kodiak Island during August-September 2004, MacLean and Koski (2005) included density estimates of cetaceans and pinnipeds for each of three depth ranges (<100 m, 100-1,000 m, and >1,000 m) during non-seismic periods.

Most surveys for pinnipeds in Alaskan waters have estimated the number of animals at haul-out sites, not in the water (e.g., Loughlin, 1994; Sease et al. , 2001; Withrow and Cesarone, 2002; Sease and York, 2003). To our knowledge, the estimates of MacLean and Koski (2005) are the only in-water estimates of pinnipeds in the proposed survey area.

The L-DEO survey will occur from September- October, 2008 in the Gulf of Alaska, , a location and time of year in which the species densities are likely similar or slightly different from those during the above-mentioned surveys in the Gulf of Alaska, but these surveys are the best available data at this time.

Eight species of odontocete whales, five species of mysticete whale, and three species of pinnipeds are expected to be harassed during the seismic survey. Risso's dolphins and short-finned pilot whales are unlikely to occur in the study area and any sightings would be considered extralimital to their range. No take was authorized for either of these species. Stejneger's beaked whales, beluga whales, gray whales, and northern fur seals occur in the Gulf of Alaska, but generally occur in the study area in low numbers or at different times of the year. Although not expected in the area, small numbers of take of Stejneger's beaked whales, gray whales, blue whales, and northern fur seals were authorized due to a lack of marine mammal survey data and uncertainty in the study area. No take of North Pacific right or beluga whales is expected or authorized due to their rare occurrence in the area and the special mitigation for these species of concern. Where stock size wasn't available, NMFS used the estimated abundance in Alaska or the region to determine the percentage of the population exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to 160 dB. Since the take estimates authorized in this IHA are no more than 5.9 percent of any affected cetacean species and no more than 0.2 percent of any affected pinnipeds species found along or offshore of the Alaskan coast, NMFS believes that the estimated take numbers for these species and stocks are small relative to the relevant population of these affected species or stocks.

Table 3 (see below) outlines the species, estimated stock population (minimum and best), and estimated percentage of the stock exposed to seismic impulses in the project area. Additional information regarding the status, abundance, and distribution of the marine mammals in the area and how the densities were calculated was included in Table 2 (see above), the notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 45407, August 5, 2008) and may be found in L-DEO's application

A detailed discussion of the potential effects of this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and behavioral effects on marine fish and invertebrates, was included in the notice of the proposed IHA (73 FR 45407, August 5, 2008). Based on the discussion in the proposed IHA notice and the nature of the activities (limited duration), the authorized operations are not expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations or stocks. Similarly, any effects to food sources are expected to be negligible.

The proposed project could potentially impact the availability of marine mammals for subsistence harvest in a very small area immediately around the Langseth , and for a very short time period during seismic activities. Considering the limited time and locations for the planned seismic surveys, most of which are well offshore, the proposed project is not expected to have any significant impacts to the availability of beluga whales, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, and sea otters. Also, seismic surveys can at times, cause changes in the catchability of fish.

To avoid having an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals, NMFS is required to implement mitigation measures to ensure that NSF and L-DEO's seismic activities do not have an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses of marine mammals in the project area. L-DEO will minimize the potential to negatively impact the subsistence harvest by coordinating with local native communities and avoiding areas (to the maximum extent practicable) where subsistence collectors are hunting marine mammals and fishing. Additionally, L-DEO will consult with each village near the planned project area to identify and avoid areas of potential conflict. These consultations will include all marine subsistence activities (mammals and fisheries). Implementation of these measures ensures that there will not be significant social or economic impacts on the coastal inhabitants of the GOA and Southeast Alaska. NMFS has determined (based on the above stated reasons) that L-DEO's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the subsistence uses of the species hunted by Alaska Natives and a requirement to these effects will be addressed in the IHA.

Mitigation and monitoring measures required to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey have been developed and refined during previous L-DEO seismic survey studies and associated environmental assessments (EAs), IHA applications, and IHAs. The mitigation and monitoring measures described herein represent a combination of the procedures required by past IHAs for other similar projects and on recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman (2007). The measures are described in detail below.

Required mitigation measures include: (1) speed or course alteration, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements; (2) power-down procedures; (3) shutdown procedures; (4) ramp-up procedures; (5) special procedures for situations and species of particular concern, e.g., avoidance of critical habitat around Steller sea lion rookeries and haul-outs (see “shut-down procedures” and “special procedures for situations and species of particular concern,” below).

Vessel-based marine mammal visual observers (MMVOs) will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun operations and during start-ups of airguns at night. MMVOs will also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations and after an extended shutdown of the airguns (i.e., 7 minutes). When feasible, MMVOs will also make observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for comparison of animal abundance and behavior. Based on MMVO observations, airguns will be powered down, or if necessary, shut down completely (see below), when marine mammals are detected within or about to enter a designated safety radius corresponding to 180 dB (for cetaceans) and 190 dB (for pinnipeds) isopleths. The MMVOs will continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal(s) are outside the safety radius, and airgun operations will not resume until the animal has left that zone. The predicted distances for the safety radius' are listed according to the sound source, water depth, and received isopleth in Table 1.

During seismic operations in the Gulf of Alaska, at least three visual observers and one bioacoustician will be based aboard the Langseth . MMVOs will be appointed by L-DEO with NMFS concurrence. At least one MMVO, and when practical two, will monitor the safety radii for marine mammals during daytime operations and nighttime startups of the airguns. Use of two simultaneous MMVOs will increase the proportion of the animals present near the source vessel that are detected. MMVO(s) will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hours. The vessel crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements (if practical). Before the start of the seismic survey the crew will be given additional instruction regarding how to do so.

The Langseth is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. When stationed on the observation platform, the eye level will be approximately 17.8 m (58.4 ft) above sea level, and the observer will have a good view around the entire vessel. During daytime, the MMVO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7x50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25x150), and with the naked eye. During darkness, NVDs will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent). Laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation. Those are useful in training MMVOs to estimate distances visually, but are generally not useful in measuring distances to animals directly.

PAM will take place to complement the visual monitoring program. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, localization, and tracking of cetaceans. It is only useful when marine mammals call, but it can be effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good visibility. The acoustic monitoring will serve to alert visual observers when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It will be monitored in real time so visual observers can be advised when cetaceans are detected. When bearings (primary and mirror-image) to calling cetacean(s) are determined, the bearings will be relayed to the visual observer to help him/her sight the calling animal(s).

The PAM system consists of hardware (i.e., hydrophones) and software. The “wet end” of the system consists of a low-noise, towed hydrophone array that is connected to the vessel by a “hairy” faired cable. The array will be deployed from a winch located on the back deck. A deck cable will connect from the winch to the main computer lab where the acoustic station and signal condition and processing system will be located. Th lead-in from the hydrophone array is approximately 400 m (1,312 ft) long, and the active part of the hydrophone is approximately 56 m (184 ft) long. The hydrophone array is typically towed at depths <20 m (65.6 ft).

The towed hydrophone array will be monitored 24 hours per day while at the survey area during airgun operations and also during most periods when the Langseth is underway with the airguns not operating. One Marine Mammal Observer (MMO) and/or bioacoustician will monitor the acoustic detection system at any one time, by listening to the signals from two channels via headphones and/or speakers and watching the real time spectrographic display for frequency ranges produced by cetaceans. MMOs monitoring the acoustical data will be on shift for 1-6 hours. Of the three observers required on board, one will have primarily responsibility for PAM during the seismic survey. However, all MMOs are expected to rotate through the PAM position, although the most experienced with acoustics will be on PAM duty more frequently.

When a vocalization is detected, the acoustic MMO will, if visual observations are in progress, contact the MMVO immediately to alert him/her to the presence of the vocalizing marine mammal(s) (if they have not already been seen), and to allow a power down or shutdown to be initiated, if required. The information regarding the call will be entered into a database. The data to be entered includes an acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information. The acoustic detection can also be recorded for further analysis.

Speed or Course Alteration - If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and, based on its position and the relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius or exclusion zone (EZ), the vessel's speed and/or direct course may be changed. This would be done if practicable while minimizing the effect on th planned science objectives. The activities and movements of the marine mammal(s) (relative to the seismic vessel) will then be closely monitored to determine whether the animals is approaching the applicable EZ. If the animal appears likely to enter the EZ, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or a power down or shut down of the airguns. Typically, during seismic operations, major course and speed adjustments are often impractical when towing long seismic streamers and large source arrays, thus alternative mitigation measures (see below) will need to be implemented.

Power-down Procedures - A power-down involves reducing the number of operating airguns in use to minimize the EZ, so that marine mammals are no longer in or about to enter this zone. A power-down of the airgun array to a reduced number of operating airguns may also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic line to another. During a power down for mitigation, one airgun will be operated. The continued operation of at least one airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area. In contrast, a shut down occurs when all airgun activity is suspended.

If a marine mammal is detected outside the EZ but is likely to enter it, and if the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid the animal(s) entering the EZ, the airguns will be powered down to a single airgun before the animal is within the EZ. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the EZ when first detected, the airguns will be powered down immediately. During a power down of the airgun array, the 40-in 3 airgun will be operated. If a marine mammal is detected within or near the smaller EZ around that single airgun (see Table 1 above), all airguns will be shutdown (see next subsection).

Following a power down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal is outside the EZ for the full array. The animal will be considered to have cleared the EZ if it:

(1) Is visually observed to have left the EZ; or

(2) Has not been seen within the EZ for 15 minutes in the case of small odontocetes and pinnipeds; or

(3) Has not been seen within the EZ for 30 minutes in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales; or

During airgun operations following a power-down (or shut down) and subsequent animal departure as above, the airgun array will resume operations following ramp-up procedures described below.

Shutdown Procedures - The operating airgun(s) will be shutdown if a marine mammal is detected within or approaching the EZ for the then-operating single 40 in 3 airgun while the airgun array is at full volume or during a power down. Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the EZ or until the MMVO is confident that the animal has left the vicinity of the vessel. Criteria for judging that the animal has cleared the EZ will be as described in the preceding subsection.

Ramp-up Procedures - A ramp-up procedure will be followed when the airgun array begins operating after more than 7 minutes without airgun operations or when a power down has exceeded 7 minutes. This period is based on the modeled 180-dB radius for the 36-airgun array (see Table 1) in relation to the planned speed of the Langseth while shooting. Similar periods (approximately 8-10 minutes) were used during previous L-DEO surveys.

Ramp-up will begin with the smallest airgun in the array (40 in 3 ). Airguns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-minute period over a total duration of approximately 20-25 minutes. During ramp-up, the MMVOs will monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals are sighted, a course/speed change, power down, or shutdown will be implemented as though the full array were operational.

If the complete EZ has not been visible for at least 30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime, ramp up will not commence unless at least one airgun (40 in 3 or similar) has been operating during the interruption of seismic survey operations. Given these provisions, it is likely that the airgun array will not be ramped up from a complete shut down at night or in thick fog, because the other part of the EZ for that array will not be visible during those conditions. If one airgun has operated during a power down period, ramp up to full power will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and have the opportunity to move away. Ramp up of the airguns will not be initiated if a marine mammal is isghted within or near the applicable EZ during the day or close to the vessel at night.

Several species of concern could occur in the study area. To the maximum extent practicable, special mitigation procedures will be used for those species, as follows:

(1) Critical habitat around Steller sea lion rookeries and haul-outs will be avoided;

(2) The airguns will be shut down if a North Pacific right whale is sighted at any distance from the vessel;

(3) The airguns will be shut down if a beluga whale is sighted at any distance from the vessel in or near Yakutat Bay;

(4) Concentrations of humpback whales, fin whales, and sea otters will be avoided;

(5) The seismic vessel will avoid areas where subsistence fishers are hunting for marine mammals and/or fishing; and

(6) Because the sensitivity of beaked whales, approach to slopes will be minimized, if possible. There are no submarine canyons in or near the study area, and only a limited amount of airgun operations is planned over slope during the proposed survey (Figure 1 of L-DEO's application).

MMVOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document any apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate the numbers of mammals potentially “taken” by harassment. They will also provide information needed to order a power-down or shutdown of airguns when marine mammals are within or near the relevant safety radius. When a sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded:

(1) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc. and including responses to ramp-up), and behavioral pace.

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (including number of airguns operating and whether in state or ramp-up, power-down, or full power), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare.

The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch, whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.

All observations, as well as information regarding airgun power down and shutdown, will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into a custom electronic database. The accuracy of data will be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. Preliminary reports will be prepared during the field program and summaries forwarded to the operating institution's shore facility and to NSF weekly or more frequently. MMVO observations will provide the following information:

(1) The basis for decisions about powering down or shutting down airgun arrays.

(2) Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially “taken by harassment.” These data will be reported to NMFS per terms of MMPA authorizations or regulations.

(3) Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.

(4) Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.

A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring and mitigation. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations (dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea state, activities), and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, species, behavior, number of animals, associated seismic survey activities). The report will also include the estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways, as well as a description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the IHA and Biological Opinion's (BiOp) Incidental Take Statement.

Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, NSF has consulted with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division on this seismic survey. NMFS has also consulted internally pursuant to section 7 of the ESA on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this activity. NMFS has issued a BiOp, which concluded that the proposed action and issuance of an IHA are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of blue, fin, humpback and sperm whales, Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles; or listed ESUs of Pacific salmon and steelhead. The BiOp also concluded that the proposed activities are not likely to adversely modify critical habitat designated for Steller sea lions in the action area. Relevant Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement in the BiOp have been incorporated into the IHA.

NSF prepared an Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the Gulf of Alaska, September 2008. NMFS has adopted NSF's EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for the issuance of the IHA.

NMFS has determined that the impact of conducting the seismic survey in the Gulf of Alaska may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior (Level B Harassment) of small numbers of 16 species of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Further, this activity is expected to result in a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks. The provision requiring that the activity not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected species or stock for subsistence uses is not implicated for this proposed action provided the mitigation measures required under the authorization are implemented.

This negligible impact determination is supported by: (1) the likelihood that, given sufficient warning through relatively slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise source that is annoying prior to it becoming potentially injurious; (2) the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 40 m (131 ft) in deep water, 60 m (197 ft) at intermediate depths, or 296 m (971 ft) in shallow water when a single airgun is in use from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; (3) the fact that marine mammals would have to be closer than 950 m (0.5 nm) in deep water, 1,425 m (0.8 nm) at intermediate depths, and 3,694 m (2 nm) in shallow water when the full array is in use at a 9 m (29.5 ft) tow depth from the vessel to be exposed to levels of sound (180 dB) believed to have even a minimal chance of causing TTS; (4) the likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained observers is good at those distances from the vessel; (5) the use of PAM, which is effective out to tens of km, will assist in the detection of vocalizing marine mammals at greater distances from the vessel; (6) the incorporation of other required mitigation measures (i.e., ramp-up, power-down, and shutdown); and (7) the limited duration of the seismic survey in the GOA study area (approximately 18 days). As a result, no take by injury or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is very low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the required monitoring and mitigation measures.

While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small, relative to the affected species and stock sizes, and has been mitigated to the lowest level practicable through incorporation of the measures mentioned previously in this document.

As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to L-DEO for conducting a marine geophysical survey in the Gulf of Alaska in September, 2008, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.

Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the intent to renew the collection of information listed below.

With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Part 38 of the Commission's regulations governs the activities of designated contract markets. The information collected thereunder is necessary for the Commission to evaluate whether entities operating as, or applying to become, designated contract markets are in compliance with the designation criteria of section 5(b) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. 7(b), and the core principles of section 5(d) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 7(d), and the Commission's regulations adopted thereunder.

The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.

Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-114) directs the Secretary of the Army to revise the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, dated March 10, 1983, and to apply the revisions to all water resources projects carried out by the Secretary, other than projects for which the Secretary has already commenced a feasibility study.

The Corps requested interested individuals and organizations to submit suggestions for revision of the P&G in a notice published in the Federal Register (73 FR 26086) on Thursday, May 8, 2008. As announced in that notice, the Corps also held a public meeting to hear oral suggestions for proposed revisions on June 5, 2008. Several major issues were discussed in the oral or written comments, including watershed planning, collaborative planning, the reliance on benefit cost ratios, giving more standing to environmental values, and non-structural flood damage reduction projects.

The Corps is now asking interested individuals and organizations to submit comments on the proposed Principles. Comments on any aspect of the proposal are welcome.

The issues on which the public may want to comment include: actions covered by the Principles (section 1), the language used to describe the national planning objective (section 2), the role of public safety in project formulation (sections 2, 7, and 9), the role of watershed analysis (section 4), the response to uncertainty (sections 5, 6, and 9), ensuring consideration of all reasonable alternatives (sections 6 and 7), the definition of and preference for non-structural plans (sections 7 and 9), and the plan selection criteria (section 9). Comments are also specifically invited on the appropriate discount rate to use in formulating proposed water resources projects.

Section 9 of the proposed Principles includes use of a higher economic standard for projects, project features, and increments of work whose primary purpose is to achieve economic benefits. A benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1.5, rather than the current 1.0 BCR threshold in the 1983 P&G, is proposed. This would result in projects that are more likely to provide a positive net economic return, and would provide better value from the available Federal and local resources. The proposed new standard would exclude projects, project features, and increments of work that provide a low return to the Nation.

While section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act applies to water resources projects of the Corps, the proposed Principles are drafted more broadly to allow for the possibility that they can be applied to the other Federal water resource agencies currently covered by the P&G. Comments are invited on suggested changes in language that might be desirable to enable other water resources agencies to use these Principles as well.

Written comments (by mail, fax, or e-mail) should be submitted to (see ADDRESSES ). Comments will be posted on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Web site ( http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/hot_topics/ht_2008/pandg_rev.htm ). Interested individuals and organizations may access copies of the following documents at this Internet site: the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, dated March 10, 1983; the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-114); and the proposed Principles. Copies of these three documents may also be requested by mail or e-mail (see ADDRESSES ). Other relevant documents, including the written suggestions received earlier, are also available at this Internet site.

Proposed Principles. 1. Purpose and Scope. These principles and the associated guidelines are intended to ensure proper, consistent and transparent planning in the formulation, evaluation, and selection of proposed Federal water and related land resources projects.

These principles establish the process for such planning studies and how each phase of the process functions. In addition, these principles provide the analytical framework to be followed for proposed further investments in, extensive modifications to, and expanded changes in operation of existing Federal water resources projects and systems.

2. National Planning Objective. The national objective of water and related land resources planning is to foster environmentally sound, efficient use of the Nation's resources consistent with public safety. This can be accomplished through watershed analyses that recognize the interdependency of water uses. This is strengthened by capitalizing on a collaborative planning and implementation process which incorporates fully informed participation from Federal agencies, non-Federal interests, non-governmental organizations, State and local and Tribal governments, and a full range of water users and stakeholders.

Water and related land resources planning that is consistent with the national planning objective seeks to incorporate some or all of these elements: facilitate sustainable national economic development, encourage wise use of water and related land resources—including floodplains and flood-prone coastal areas, support the protection and restoration of significant aquatic ecosystems, promote the integration and improvement of how the Nation's water resources are managed; and reduce vulnerabilities and losses due to natural disasters.

3. Overview. The basic planning process consists of the following major steps:

(1) Specification of the water and water related land resources problems and opportunities in the planning setting and their relationship to the national planning objective;

(2) Inventory and analysis of the current condition of the water and related land resources relevant to the identified problems and opportunities;

(3) Identification of study objectives with respect to the problems and opportunities, after taking into account current and potential future uses of the water resources;

(4) Formulation of a full range of alternative plans reflecting those study objectives;

(5) Evaluation of the potential effects of the alternative plans;

(6) Comparison of the alternative plans; and

(7) Selection of a proposed plan, which best meets both the study objectives and the national planning objective.

The planning process is dynamic with various steps that should be iterated as new data are obtained, or as the understanding of the problems, opportunities, and study objectives or their significance changes or is better defined. These iterations, which may occur at any step, may sharpen the planning focus or change its direction or emphasis.

4. Watersheds. Water and related land resources have many, and at times competing, alternative uses. Water resources planning can identify and address the synergies and trade-offs associated with these multiple uses within the watershed.

Water and related land resources planning should commence from the watershed level to determine how the problems and opportunities being examined in a study fits into the current and expected watershed needs. The planning effort is primarily informed by such watershed analysis wherein proposed projects are considered in the full light of upstream and downstream conditions and needs that ensures project recommendations are part of a complementary systems solution. This highlights the importance that planning proceed, in a coordinated systems context, with the interactions of other programs, projects, and plans that are relevant within the related watershed being understood.

Water resources planning is collaborative and may consider alternatives and strategies for implementation by other Federal agencies, state and local agencies, Native American tribes, non-Federal interests, non-governmental organizations, affected groups and individuals, and/or the public at large. The focus should be on developing plans that are consistent with the national planning objective and are efficient, complete, and effective.

5. Science Based Analysis. Harnessing accurate and high quality data, using expert knowledge, and taking an interdisciplinary approach to incorporating the information into the planning process is critical to effective and well executed planning.

Knowledge. Water and related land resources planning can only be successful when using knowledge and expertise effectively, as well as, the best information available in each step of the process. Objectivity and the elimination of sources of potential bias are critical in the planning process.

Accuracy and Quality of Data. Decision-making can be of the highest quality when it is founded on the best available data and models with high degrees of accuracy in hydrology, engineering, geology, ecology, other physical and life sciences, economics and other relevant social sciences.

Interdisciplinary Planning. Due to the complicated nature of water and related land resources planning, an interdisciplinary team approach to planning will ensure the proper integration of engineering, physical and life sciences, social sciences, economics, and environmental design. Success in planning is best achieved by matching appropriate planning disciplines to the planning issues to be addressed.

Peer Review. Peer review by experts from within the agency is an important element of successful planning. It can add to the knowledge available to planners and is best integrated into the planning process on an ongoing basis. Where appropriate, outside independent experts should be brought into the planning process to confirm the agency's analytical methods and analysis, the conclusions of the report based on these methods and analysis, or the way in which the agency conducted the planning process.

Risk and Uncertainty. Water and related land resources planning, even with the best engineering, science, economics and other knowledge possible, will still have elements of risk (probability of occurrence) and uncertainty (imprecision of measurements and analysis). It is important to explicitly identify, characterize, and document the risks and uncertainty throughout the planning process. A clear description of the risks and uncertainties adds important value to the planning process by allowing decisions to be made with full knowledge of the degree of reliability and the limits of the data and information used.

6. Conditions. Gathering information on the conditions in an area that is relevant to the planning issues under study is essential before defining a series of alternatives. Though conditions may change or become better defined during the planning process, it is essential to understand the conditions that are important to the planning issue and developing the assumptions based on those conditions in a logical, clear and transparent manner.

Inclusion of Other Parties. Other interested Federal agencies, state and local agencies, affected groups and individuals, Native American tribes with an interest, and the public at large are to be provided a full opportunity to inform decisions throughout the planning process, including providing data and evidence necessary for plan formulation and evaluation.

Inventory of Current Conditions. An inventory of current water and related land resources conditions in the area of the watershed that either is contributory to or affected by the planning effort is an integral part of being able to describe the existing conditions. An inventory, sufficiently broad in scale to encompass all significant causes and effects is integral to the planning process. Significant physical, economic, ecological, safety, cultural, social, aesthetic, and other relevant conditions that are part of this inventory provide a snapshot of the present, and are a consequence of the past. Therefore, the inventory is likely to include the relevant geologic, geomorphologic, hydrologic, climatic, economic, cultural, social, land use, and other historic data necessary to build the picture of the present.

An inventory, which is expanded as needed to assist the planning process, can be used throughout the process to advance the national planning objective—for example, to revise the statement of problems and opportunities or further define them; to identify or revise the study objectives; to sharpen the planning focus or change its direction or emphasis; and to inform the formulation and refinement of alternative plans and the evaluation of those plans.

Projection of with and without Plan Conditions. The world is dynamic and planning for the uncertain future requires a reasonable forecast of future events and outcomes. The inventory and analysis of current conditions provides the baseline data for use in forecasting future conditions.

A specific set of assumed future conditions, based on the best estimate of the conditions that are likely to prevail in the presence and in the absence of a proposed action, is one approach to look at future conditions. The with and without plan condition is an objectively based, extrapolation of current conditions into the future which serves as one basis for estimating and evaluating the cost, effectiveness, and beneficial and adverse effects of the alternative plans.

The development of the with and without plan condition is guided primarily by what is known and is the key part of the planning process that drives justification of recommended projects. Assumed changes from the present to the future are based on a series of observed past events that provide a reasonable basis to quantify the probability of occurrence of a similar trend into the future.

The future conditions also reflect any such changes that are likely to occur under current government policy. As these are the basis for future analyses, it is important that the rationale for development of these conditions be clearly documented.

7. Plan Formulation. Plan formulation is undertaken to determine the Federal interest in solving identified water resources problems. This is accomplished by creating a full range of alternative plans meeting the national planning objective while reflecting the study objectives for water and related land resources projects. While development of alternatives is generally unconstrained, the development of alternatives must take into account the ability to implement that plan in consideration of Federal and non-Federal resources considering their availability for water resources purposes nationwide is finite—both at any point in time and over the long-term.

7.1 General Considerations.

Structural Plans. Structural plans are those that intentionally modify existing hydrologic and geomorphic processes, including most aquatic ecosystem restoration plans.

Non-Structural Plans. Non-structural plans are those that avoid or minimize changes to the existing hydrologic and geomorphic processes by changed management or use of existing infrastructure or by emphasizing alternatives that manage human activity and development. Nonstructural alternatives also often avoid or minimize adverse impacts in the aquatic environment.

Public Safety. Addressing concerns over public safety is achieved by assuring infrastructure is reliable, and that risks posed to human life and security are avoided, reduced, or mitigated consistent with current engineering standards and are a component of both structural and nonstructural plans. Additionally, plans that clearly describe any residual risk, the measures to address or manage that risk, its resiliency, and the associated components of cooperation needed to assure public safety stand to add value and understanding to the planning process.

Environmental. Addressing concerns over adverse environmental impact and how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate these impacts on the environment are a component of both structural and nonstructural plans.

Key Assumptions. Important to the planning process is understanding and explicitly stating the key assumptions, the supporting rationale for these assumptions, and the predicted and achieved outcomes based on similar approaches used in the past that have relied heavily on these assumptions.

Lifecycle Considerations. An ongoing evaluation of the lifecycle and ability of current systems to meet contemporary needs is especially valuable during the planning process. The planning process provides an opportunity to evaluate and examine whether extensively modifying operations, adding features, or discontinuing features would contribute to the national planning objective.

Wide Range of Plans. A range of alternative plans, significantly differentiated from each other in terms of their composition of measures, the extent to which they comport with the national planning objective, and their scale and features, are necessary to have the greatest chance of identifying the best plan for addressing the planning issues.

Integration with Other Plans. Alternative plans that are consistent with other established Federal, State, local and Tribal plans can add value to the alternatives. This includes any synergy with other entities watershed plans, aquatic ecosystem plans, and integrated water resource management plans or any elements contained within them. The inclusion of clear and explicit descriptions and consideration of these other entities' plans as well as describing the similarities and differences, synergies and discrepancies, potential implementation coordination, and other relevant explanations of their plans adds clarity to the planning process.

Consistency with Existing Statutes, Regulations & Policies. Addressing concerns over the implementability of plans is best addressed by including plans that are consistent with existing statutes, regulations and policies along with describing explicitly how they influence the planning process. Statutory, regulatory, and/or policy changes necessary to facilitate a plan should be described in detail.

7.2 Alternative Plans. Plans are formulated from combinations of structural and nonstructural measures that address the planning problems and opportunities.

Required Alternatives. In order to facilitate the development of the widest range of practical alternative plans, the following required alternatives constitute the minimum series of plans necessary. The concept of a practical alternative plan means that any of the required alternatives below can and often will include elements that meet the other objectives.

National Economic Development (NED) Plan: A plan that primarily maximizes the net contributions to the NED objective as part of the national planning objective.

Environmental Quality (EQ) Plan: A plan that primarily maximizes the net quantity or quality of the environmental quality objective as part of the national planning objective.

Primarily Nonstructural Plan: A plan which primarily employs nonstructural elements, and as a secondary consideration adds structural features to address the planning issues.

8. Evaluation of Plans. All plans should be well characterized, explained, and justified. The thorough evaluation of the range of plans developed requires an open assessment of the plans ability to meet the evaluative criteria that begins with, but is not limited to, the national planning objective. Additionally, evaluating the effects of each alternative plan includes, but is not limited to, its impacts on current and potential future uses of the water resources and related land uses throughout the watershed, impacts and potential effects of climate change, the relationship of each alternative plan to other relevant water and related land resources projects, and the relationship of each alternative plan to other existing plans.

8.1 General Considerations.

Interdisciplinary Team Evaluation. An interdisciplinary team approach to the plan evaluation process can ensure the integration of engineering, economics, natural and social sciences, and the environment in a balanced manner based on the planning issues to be addressed. The disciplines of the planners are to be appropriately matched to the planning issues, and appropriate consultation and inclusion of those with specialized expertise is integral to develop a balanced plan that addresses the issues of concern.

Multi-Criterion Evaluation, Consistency & Transparency. Evaluating each plan against each criterion in a comparative manner (e.g., matrix) facilitates the planning process. Effects accounted for in one account should only be used once in order to maintain the consistency of the evaluation methodology. Not all criteria can be quantified in a similar manner, therefore clearly describing the quantified value, the range of the scale, including any weighting factor, justification for the weighting factor, and the value used, along with how the weighting factor affected the overall plan, will produce multi-criterion evaluation for each alternative plan.

8.2 Required Accounts. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the range of alternative plans, the following required accounts constitute the minimum evaluative framework necessary.

The following five accounts are used to catalogue the significant effects of an alternative on the human environment.

Public Safety (PS): The safety of populations at risk.

National Economic Development (NED): The effects on the national economy.

Environmental Quality (EQ): The effects on the ecological, cultural, aesthetic and other attributes of natural and cultural resources.

Regional Economic Development (RED): The effects on the regional economy, including income effects, income transfers, and employment effects not addressed in the NED account.

Other Social Effects (OSE): The effects on the urban or communities quality of life and health.

9. Plan Selection. The planning process leads to the identification of alternative plans that could be recommended or selected. These plans are referred to as the final array of plans including the required plans. The culmination of the planning process is the selection of the recommended plan from among the final array of plans, including a potential decision to take no action. The selection of the recommended plan, as with the development of alternatives, must be cognizant of the national planning objective, national mission authorities and of the availability of Federal and non-Federal resources available for water and water related resources.

9.1 Selection Criteria.

National Planning Objective Criterion. The Chief of Engineers may propose a water and related land resources plan that involves Federal action only if that plan would advance the national planning objective. The goal is to formulate and propose a series of projects over time across the Nation, which together will amount in effect to an implementable national water resources plan.

Net Beneficial Effects Criterion. A recommended plan (when considered on the basis of the with-plan versus without-plan comparison) must have combined NED and beneficial EQ effects that outweigh the combined NED and adverse EQ effects. Where both benefits and costs of the plans can be quantified and expressed in monetary terms, then these values will be produced to provide information on the net beneficial effects of the plan. Where benefits cannot be monetized with reasonable accuracy, or when statutes or other authorities require non-monetary values, water and related land resource plans should present the results of an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and otherwise continue to provide the information called for in the multi-criterion evaluation process.

Uncertainty Criterion. Where significant uncertainty regarding a future trend exists, both the option of no action and an alternative plan based on proceeding in steps, using an incremental adaptive management approach should be compared to one another, and the better of these two options should be pursued.

9.2 Project Types.

Commercial Navigation & Hydropower. For commercial navigation and hydropower features, the plan with high net economic return (benefit cost ratio of at least 1.5) to the Nation for each increment of such work, consistent with protecting the environment, will be considered minimally acceptable. Plans that address the most critical needs and have an increasingly higher benefit cost ratio should be more heavily weighted in the selection process.

Flood and Storm Damage Reduction. Flood and storm damage reduction features could include structural and non-structural components. As both monetary and non-monetary values are likely to be part of the decision process when non-structural components are included, a comparative approach as identified in the Multi-Criterion Evaluation, Consistency & Transparency section will provide the clarity in these situations for decision making. Where benefits are measured in monetary values only, the plan with high net economic return (benefit cost ratio of at least 1.5) to the Nation for each increment of such work, consistent with protecting the environment, will be considered minimally acceptable. Plans that address the most critical needs and have an increasingly higher benefit cost ratio should be more heavily weighted in the selection process. Generally, when structural and non-structural components provide viable options when considering all evaluation criteria, including benefits, costs and adverse effects, preference should be given to non-structural components so long as the monetary benefits are at least at unity. If the non-monetary benefits represent a majority of the total benefits and are of National significance, then consideration can be given to selecting a plan with monetary benefits less than unity.

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. For aquatic ecosystem restoration features, the plan that is cost-effective, sustainable, and is the alternative plan that best reflects an appropriate level to invest for that ecosystem from a national perspective, after considering the national or regional significance and cost of protecting or restoring that ecosystem compared to others will be considered as minimally acceptable for selection. Plans that address the most critical ecological needs using the minimum action needed to substantially improve the natural functions or services with increasingly higher cost effectiveness should be more heavily weighted in the selection process.

Multiple Objectives. For multiple objective projects with features and increments of work whose benefits and costs are jointly distributed among more than one objective, each such feature or increment of work should yield a net overall return to the Nation after considering its cost, effectiveness, and other beneficial and adverse effects. Where the benefits are measured in monetary values only; those with high net economic return (benefit cost ratio of at least 1.5) to the Nation for each increment of such work, consistent with protecting the environment, will be considered minimally acceptable. Plans that address the most critical needs and have an increasingly higher benefit cost ratio should be more heavily weighted in the selection process. Where plans have both monetary and non-monetary values, a comparative approach as identified in the Multi-Criterion Evaluation, Consistency & Transparency section is to be used to inform a decision. The monetary benefits of a multi-criteria plan must at least be unity. If the non-monetary benefits represent a majority of the total benefits and are of national significance, then consideration can be given to selecting a plan with monetary benefits less than unity.

9.3 Agency Exception. The Secretary will ordinarily consider exceptions to the selection criteria under the following circumstances: where there are overriding reasons for doing so, including safety and other Federal, State, local, Tribal, and international concerns. The reasons for an exception are to be given in a request from the Chief of Engineers and must be appropriately documented. The full planning process carried forth through the study must be documented, completed and submitted along with the documented exception in order to uphold the ideal of a transparent process.

• October 21, 2008, 5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Sidney, MT

• October 22, 2008, 5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Glendive, MT

• October 23, 2008, 5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m., Billings, MT

• Community Services Building—1201 West Holly, Sidney, MT

• Dawson Community College—300 College Drive—Ullman Center Room 102, Glendive, MT

• Montana State University Downtown Campus—207 North Broadway, Billings, MT

The meeting facilities are physically accessible to people with disabilities. People needing special assistance to attend and/or participate in the public hearings should contact Patience Hurley at 701-221-1204 in the Dakotas Area Office in Bismarck as soon as possible. To allow sufficient time to process special requests, please call no later than one week before the public hearing of interest.

Reclamation's Lower Yellowstone Project is located in eastern Montana and western North Dakota. Intake Diversion Dam is located approximately 70 miles upstream of the confluence of the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers near Glendive, Montana. The Lower Yellowstone Project was authorized by the Secretary of the Interior on May 10, 1904. Construction of the Lower Yellowstone Project began in 1905 and included Intake Diversion Dam (also known as Yellowstone River Diversion Dam)—a 12-foot high wood and stone diversion dam that spans the Yellowstone River and diverts water into the Main Canal for irrigation. The Lower Yellowstone Project was authorized to provide a dependable water supply sufficient to irrigate approximately 52,000 acres of land on the benches above the west bank of the Yellowstone River. Water is also supplied to irrigate approximately 830 acres in the Intake Irrigation Project and 2,200 acres in the Savage Unit. Both of the smaller irrigation projects pump water from the Main Canal. The average annual volume of water diverted for these projects is 327,046 acre-feet.

The Service listed the pallid sturgeon as endangered under the ESA in 1990. The wild population of pallid sturgeon inhabiting the Yellowstone River and the Missouri River between Fort Peck Dam and Lake Sakakawea are anticipated to be extirpated by 2017 if reproduction and recruitment of young fish does not improve. The best available science suggests Intake Diversion Dam impedes upstream migration of pallid sturgeon and their access to spawning and larval drift habitats. In addition, previous entrainment studies on other native fish in the Yellowstone River suggest that once passage is provided, pallid sturgeon may be entrained in the Main Canal.

The lower Yellowstone River is considered to provide one of the best opportunities for recovery of pallid sturgeon. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for listed species. Reclamation has been in informal consultation with the Service to identify potential conservation measures to minimize adverse effects to pallid sturgeon associated with continued operation of the Lower Yellowstone Project on the Yellowstone River. The Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan specifically identifies providing passage at Intake Diversion Dam to protect and restore pallid sturgeon populations. By providing passage at Intake Diversion Dam, approximately 160 river miles of spawning and larval drift habitat would become available in the Yellowstone River. By installing fish entrainment reduction measures, pallid sturgeon entrainment in the Main Canal would be minimized.

The Service recommended in their 2003 amendment to the Missouri River Master Manual biological opinion that the Corps assist Reclamation in providing passage for pallid sturgeon at Intake Diversion Dam as a conservation recommendation. Section 3109 of the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorizes the Corps to use funding from the Missouri River Recovery and Mitigation Program to assist Reclamation with compliance, design, and construction of modifications to the Lower Yellowstone Project for purposes of ecosystem restoration.

Reclamation initiated a collaborative effort with the Service; Corps; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District; and The Nature Conservancy through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on July 8, 2005. Reclamation coordinated a value planning study in August 2005 with representatives from parties signatory to the MOU to explore and evaluate a broad range of alternatives for fish passage and entrainment reduction.

Reclamation and the Corps will use a broad range of scoping activities to fully identify the range of potentially significant issues, actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the EIS. These scoping activities will ensure the public has sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Federal action and reasonable alternatives for fish passage and entrainment reduction at Intake Diversion Dam. Public comments are invited and encouraged to assist agencies in identifying the scope of potentially significant environmental, social, and economic issues relevant to the proposed Federal action and determining reasonable alternatives to be considered in the EIS.

Reclamation and the Corps have scheduled three public scoping meetings and are inviting agencies, tribes, non-governmental organizations, and the public to participate in an open exchange of information and to provide comments on the proposed scope of the EIS.

As required by CEQ's implementing regulations, all reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action that meet the purpose and need will be considered in the EIS. These alternatives will include no action and a range of reasonable alternatives for improving fish passage and reducing entrainment. Appropriate mitigation measures will be incorporated into the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. The EIS will analyze and disclose environmental impacts associated with the proposed Federal action and alternatives together with engineering, operations and maintenance, social, and economic considerations. Through MOU partner discussions and evaluations, alternatives for passage have been identified, discussed, and analyzed. Preliminary alternatives to improve fish passage include the following:

(1) Passage around the existing diversion dam;

(2) Relocation of the diversion dam and canal headworks to take advantage of hydrology and topography;

(3) Removing the dam and constructing a single or multiple pumping plants; and

(4) Variations of a low-gradient rock ramp in the river.

(1) A fish screen structure in the Main Canal with fish bypass to river; and

(2) A rotary drum fish screen on the bank of the river.

A range of issues relevant to the proposed Federal action have tentatively been identified for consideration and analysis in the EIS. This list is preliminary and is intended to facilitate public comment on the scope of this EIS. Reclamation and the Corps invite you to comment on the following general questions that reflect potentially significant issues or questions of widespread public interest believed to be relevant to the proposed Federal action. Reclamation and the Corps invite and encourage comments that identify other potentially significant issues and effects that you believe should be addressed in the EIS.

How would the proposed action affect or address the following:

• Aquatic communities and habitats in the lower Yellowstone River?

• Delivery of irrigation water for the Lower Yellowstone Project?

• Continued operation and viability of irrigated agriculture in the Lower Yellowstone Project?

• Water-based recreation, such as changes to boat ramps and/or changes to angling opportunities for paddlefish and other fish?

• Economic conditions related to the paddlefish caviar industry?

• Social and economic conditions in affected communities associated with construction activities and long-term operation and maintenance, including paddlefish caviar harvest and concession activities?

• Short-term and long-term impacts on surface water quality?

• Floodplain, wetlands, and riparian communities?

• Water quantity associated with operations and climate change?

• Land-based recreation, including possible changes to the public park area and river access?

• Relevant cumulative environmental impacts to the Yellowstone River from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions?

• Cultural resources such as historic, archaeological, architectural, or traditional properties?

• Environmental justice, particularly whether or not water management activities have a disproportionate adverse effect on minority and low-income populations?

• Compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations and with international agreements and required Federal and State environmental permits, consultations, and notifications?

• Compliance with all applicable executive orders?

Reclamation and the Corps believe it is important to inform the public of the environmental review process. To assist Reclamation and the Corps in identifying and considering issues related to the proposed Federal action, comments made during formal scoping and later on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. Reviewers must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts Reclamation and the Corps to the reviewer's position and contentions. It is very important that those interested in this proposed Federal action participate by the close of the scoping period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to Reclamation and the Corps at a time when they can meaningfully consider and respond to them.

If you wish to comment, you may mail or e-mail your comments as indicated under the ADDRESSES section. Before including your name, address, phone number, e-mail address, or any other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment including your personal identifying information may be made available to the public at any time.

While you can request in your comment for us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on the permit application on or before October 1, 2008. Scoping comments should be submitted within the next 60 days, but may be submitted at any time prior to publication of the Draft EIS. To submit comments on this notice or for questions about the proposed action and the Draft EIS, please contact Lisa Gibson, 1325 J Street (Room 1480), Sacramento, CA 95814-2922. Parties interested in being added to the Corps' electronic mail notification list for the proposed project can register at: http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/register.html. Please refer to Identification Number SPK-2007-02159 in any correspondence.

The South Folsom Property Owners Group consists of seven property owners. Each property owner would file an application for Department of the Army authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The City of Folsom has filed a permit application for the proposed project. Because these applications are interrelated, USACE is considering them in a comprehensive and combined manner. The joint purpose of these applications is to construct a large-scale, mixed-use, mixed-density master planned community and associated supporting infrastructure. To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), USACE has decided to prepare an EIS to assess the potential impacts to waters of the United States from these combined applications.

The proposed Folsom South of 50 Specific Plan project site lies within unincorporated Sacramento County, CA, immediately south of the City of Folsom's existing city limits. The site is within the City of Folsom's Sphere of Influence (SOI). It is located south of U.S. Highway 50, north of White Rock Road, east of Prairie City Road, and west of the El Dorado County line.

Preliminary wetland delineations of the project site show that a total of 82.89 acres of waters of the United States are present within the proposed project area, including 4.11 acres of vernal pools, 24.43 acres of seasonal wetland swales, 4.75 acres of seasonal wetlands, 1.25 acre of freshwater marsh, 10.46 acres of freshwater seeps, 7.72 acres of ponds, 17.80 acres of stream channels (relatively permanent waters), 10.43 acres of ephemeral drainage channels (non relatively permanent waters), and 1.93 acres of ditches. The City of Folsom has applied to fill approximately 21.28 acres of these waters to construct the proposed project. These acreages do not include indirect impacts from the proposed action or impacts anticipated to result from off-site infrastructure that may be determined to be required to support the proposed project as part of the EIS process.

The EIS/EIR will include alternatives to the Proposed Action that will meet both NEPA and CEQA requirements. The alternatives will also meet the requirements of CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. At this time it is expected that the joint EIS/EIR will evaluate the following on-site alternatives: (1) No Action Alternative; (2) Proposed Action; (3) Resource Impact Minimization Alternative; (4) Centralized Development Alternative; (5) Reduced Hillside Development Alternative; (6) No Build Alternative; and at least one off-site alternative.

The Corps' public involvement program includes several opportunities to provide verbal and written comments on the proposed Folsom South of 50 Specific Plan project through the EIS process. Affected federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, and other interested private organizations and parties are invited to participate. Potentially significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS include loss of waters of the United States (including wetlands), and impacts related to cultural resources, biological resources, air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, traffic, aesthetics, utilities and service systems, and socioeconomic effects.

USACE would initiate formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the proposed impacts to listed species. USACE would also consult with the State Historic Preservation Office under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for properties listed or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, as appropriate.

The joint lead agencies expect the Draft EIS/EIR to be made available to the public in the summer 2009.

The Department of the Navy (Navy) proposes to extend the operational areas associated with the NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex in Washington State. The Keyport Range Complex is composed of three geographically distinct range sites: The Keyport Range Site, Dabob Bay Range Complex (DBRC) Site, and the Quinault Underwater Tracking Range (QUTR) Site. The proposed action would provide additional operating space at each of the three range sites and would also include small increases in the average annual number of tests and days of testing at the Keyport Range Site and the QUTR Site. Portions of the proposed extension associated with the QUTR Site fall outside the 12-nautical mile (nm) (22-kilometer [km]) Territorial Waters established by Presidential Proclamation 5928. Therefore, this Draft EIS/OEIS has also been prepared in accordance with Navy procedures implementing Executive Order 12114 addressing components of the proposed action beyond U.S. Territorial Waters.

The purpose of the proposed action is to enable NUWC Keyport to continue fulfilling its mission of providing test and evaluation services and expertise to support the Navy's evolving manned and unmanned undersea vehicle program. NUWC Keyport has historically provided facilities and capabilities to support testing of torpedoes, other unmanned vehicles, submarine readiness, diver training, and similar activities that are critical to the success of undersea warfare. Technological advancements in the materials, instrumentation, guidance systems, and tactical capabilities of manned and unmanned vehicles continue to evolve in parallel with emerging national security priorities and threat assessments. In response, range capabilities and vehicle test protocols must also evolve in order to provide effective program support for such advancements.

The proposed action to extend range operational areas is needed because the existing Range Complex is becoming increasingly incapable of satisfying the existing and evolving operational capabilities and test requirements of next-generation manned and unmanned vehicles. The Navy requires a range complex with assets that provide a broader diversity of sea state conditions, bottom type, deeper water, and increased room to maneuver and combine activities. Extending the Range Complex operating areas as proposed would enable the Navy to better support current and future vehicle test requirements in multiple marine environments.

The proposed action would support current and evolving test requirements and range activities conducted at the NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex. The action also proposes increases in the average annual number of tests and days of testing at Keyport Range and QUTR Sites. As the three range sites within the NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex are geographically distinct, the set of alternatives for one range site is independent of the set of alternatives for another range site. One or more action alternatives have been identified for each range site (in addition to the No-Action Alternative):

• Keyport Range Site: Keyport Range Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative)—extend range boundaries to the north, east, and south, increasing the size of the range from 1.5 square nautical miles (nm 2 ) to 3.2 nm 2 (5.2 square kilometers [km 2 ] to 11.0 km 2 ). The average annual days of use would increase from 55 to 60 days.

• DBRC Site: DBRC Alternative 1—extend the southern boundary of this range approximately 10 nm (19 km). DBRC Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)—extend the southern boundary approximately 10 nm (19 km), and the northern boundary to 1 nm (2 km) south of the Hood Canal Bridge, increasing the size of the range from 32.7 nm 2 to 45.7 nm 2 (112.1 km 2 to 156.7 km 2 ). There would be no increase in average annual days of use under either DBRC alternative.

• QUTR Site: QUTR Alternative 1—extend the range boundaries to coincide with the overlying special use airspace of W-237A plus locate an 8.4 nm 2 (28.8 km 2 ) surf zone at Kalaloch. The total range area under QUTR Alternative 1 would increase from approximately 48.3 nm 2 (165.5 km 2 ) to approximately 1,840.4 nm 2 (6,312.4 km 2 ). QUTR Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative)—extend the range boundaries the same as Alternative 1 but locate a 7.8 nm 2 (26.6 km 2 ) surf zone at Pacific Beach instead of at Kalaloch. The total range area under QUTR Alternative 2 would be 1,839.8 nm 2 (6,310.2 km 2 ). QUTR Alternative 3—extend the range boundaries the same as Alternative 1 but locate a 22.6 nm 2 (77.6 km 2 ) surf zone at Ocean City instead of at Kalaloch. The total range area under QUTR Alternative 3 would be 1,854.6 nm 2 (6,361.2 km 2 ). For all three QUTR alternatives, the average annual use for offshore activities would increase from 14 days to 16 days and activities in the selected surf zone would occur an average of 30 days per year.

The Navy considered a number of other alternatives that were potentially able to support the NUWC Keyport mission. These testing alternatives were initially screened and evaluated to determine their ability to meet the minimum operational selection criteria but were eliminated from consideration due to their inconsistency with the mission and strategic vision for NUWC Keyport and with the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Three additional surf zone alternatives were initially considered but eliminated from consideration because they did not meet the screening criteria for the Proposed Action. Therefore, these alternatives were not carried forward for analysis in the EIS/OEIS.

Section 1502.14(d) of the CEQ guidelines requires that the alternatives analysis in the EIS “include the alternative of no action.” In its NEPA's Forty Most Asked Questions, CEQ identifies two distinct interpretations of “no action.” The interpretation selected by the action proponent depends on the nature of the proposal being evaluated. One interpretation of the No-Action alternative is that the proposed activity would not take place. This would mean that Navy would not conduct test or training activities in the Range Complex. This interpretation does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and would neither be reasonable nor practical. The other interpretation of the No-Action alternative is “no change from current management direction or level of management intensity.” This interpretation would meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and would allow the Navy to compare the potential impacts of the proposed action to the impacts of maintaining the status quo. With regard to this EIS/OEIS, the No-Action Alternative represents the regular and historic level of activity on the Range Complex. Thus, the No-Action Alternative serves as a baseline “status quo” when studying levels of range use and activity. In the Draft EIS/OEIS, the potential impacts of the current level of RDT&E and fleet activity on the NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex (defined by the No-Action Alternative) are compared to the potential impacts of activities proposed under the action alternatives.

The Navy analyzed potential effects of its current and proposed activities on marine mammals, fish, sea turtles, marine flora and invertebrates, terrestrial wildlife, sediments and water quality, cultural resources, recreation, land and shoreline use, public health and safety, socioeconomics and environmental justice, and air quality.

No significant adverse impacts are identified for any resource area in any geographic location within the NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex Study Area that cannot be mitigated, with the exception of exposure of marine mammals to underwater sound. The Navy has requested from NMFS a Letter of Authorization (LOA) in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act to authorize the incidental take of marine mammals that may result from the implementation of the activities analyzed in the NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex Extension Draft EIS/OEIS. In compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Management Act, the Navy is in consultation with NMFS regarding potential impacts to Essential Fish Habitat. In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Navy is consulting with NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for potential impacts to federally listed species. The Navy is coordinating with the Washington Department of Ecology for a Coastal Consistency Determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Navy analysis has indicated that under the Clean Air Act requirements, no significant impacts would occur to the regional air quality and under the Clean Water Act there would be no significant impacts to water quality. National Historic Preservation Act analysis indicated that no significant impacts to cultural resources would occur if the proposed action or alternatives were implemented. Implementation of the No Action Alternative or any of the proposed action alternatives would not disturb, adversely affect, or result in any takes of bald eagles. None of the alternatives would result in a significant adverse effect on the population of a migratory bird species.

The decision to be made by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations & Environment) is to determine which alternatives analyzed in the EIS/OEIS best meet the needs of the Navy given that all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts have been considered.

The Draft EIS/OEIS was distributed to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested individuals and organizations on September 12, 2008. The public comment period will end on October 27, 2008. Copies of the Draft EIS/OEIS are available for public review at the following libraries:

The NAVSEA NUWC Keyport Range Complex Extension Draft EIS/OEIS is also available for electronic public viewing at: http://www-keyport.kpt.nuwc.navy.mil. A paper copy of the Executive Summary or a single CD with the Draft EIS/OEIS will be made available upon written request by contacting Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, Attention: Mrs. Kimberly Kler (EIS/OEIS PM), 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale, WA 98315-1101; facsimile: 360-396-0857.

Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties are invited to be present or represented at the public hearing. Written comments can also be submitted during the open house sessions preceding the public hearings.

Oral statements will be heard and transcribed by a stenographer; however, to ensure the accuracy of the record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and written, will become part of the public record on the Draft EIS/OEIS and will be responded to in the Final EIS/OEIS. Equal weight will be given to both oral and written statements. In the interest of available time, and to ensure all who wish to give an oral statement have the opportunity to do so, each speaker's comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. If a long statement is to be presented, it should be summarized at the public hearing with the full text submitted either in writing at the hearing, or mailed or faxed to Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, Attention: Mrs. Kimberly Kler (EIS/OEIS PM), 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, Silverdale, WA 98315-1101; facsimile: 360-396-0857. In addition, comments may be submitted on-line at http://www-keyport.kpt.nuwc.navy.mil during the comment period. All written comments must be postmarked by October 27, 2008 to ensure they become part of the official record. All comments will be addressed in the Final EIS/OEIS.

The Navy has identified the need to support and conduct current, emerging and future training and RDT&E operations in the Navy CHPT Range Complex. The proposed action does not indicate major changes to Navy CHPT Range Complex facilities, operations, training, or RDT&E capacities over the 10-year planning period. Rather, the proposed action would result in relatively small-scale but critical enhancements to the Navy CHPT Range Complex that are necessary if the Navy and Marine Corps are to maintain a state of military readiness commensurate with their national defense mission.

The EIS/OEIS addresses the training strategies described in the Fleet Readiness Training Plan (FRTP) that implements the Fleet Response Plan (FRP), which ensures continuous availability of agile, flexible, trained, and ready surge-capable (rapid response) forces. The recommended range enhancements, and current and future training and testing operations, which have the potential to impact the environment are the primary focus of the EIS/OEIS.

The purpose for the proposed action is to:

• Achieve and maintain Fleet readiness using the Navy CHPT Range Complex to support and conduct current, emerging, and future training and RDT&E operations;

• Expand warfare missions supported by the Navy CHPT Range Complex; and

• Upgrade and modernize existing range capabilities to enhance and sustain Navy and Marine Corps training and RDT&E.

The need for the proposed action is to provide range capabilities for training and equipping combat-capable naval forces ready to deploy worldwide. In this regard, the Navy CHPT Range Complex furthers the Navy's execution of its Congressionally mandated roles and responsibilities under title 10 U.S.C. 5062. To implement this Congressional mandate, the Navy needs to:

• Maintain current levels of military readiness by training in the Navy CHPT Range Complex;

• Accommodate future increases in operational training tempo in the Navy CHPT Range Complex and support the rapid deployment of naval units or strike groups;

• Achieve and sustain readiness of ships and squadrons consistent with the FRP so the Navy and Marine Corps can quickly surge significant combat power in the event of a national crisis or contingency operation;

• Support the acquisition and implementation into the Fleet of advanced military technology. The Navy CHPT Range Complex must adequately support the testing and training needed for new aircraft and weapons systems; and

• Maintain the long-term viability of the Navy CHPT Range Complex while protecting human health and the environment, and enhancing its quality, communication capability and safety.

Support to current, emerging and future training and RDT&E operations, including implementation of range enhancements, entails the actions evaluated in the EIS/OEIS.

These potentially include:

• Increase use of contractor-operated aircraft that simulate enemy aircraft during training (Commercial Air Services Support for Fleet Opposition Forces and Electronic Warfare Threat Training);

• Increase anti-piracy and maritime interdiction training (Anti-terrorism Surface Strike Group Training);

• Support MH-60R/S helicopter warfare mission areas;

• Designate a littoral mine warfare training area for deploying temporary mineshapes in support of Strike Group mine warfare training during major exercises; and,

• Upgrade the Mid-Atlantic Electronic Warfare Range (MAEWR).

The proposed action is to support and conduct current and emerging training and RDT&E in the Navy CHPT Range Complex. To achieve this, the Navy proposes to:

• Maintain baseline training and testing operations at current levels, plus sufficient additional operations to support a surge capability in compliance with FRP.

• Provide flexibility to respond to real-world situations with increased training operations, and to accommodate mission expansion, emerging force structure changes (including those resulting from the introduction of new aircraft and weapons systems), and new range capabilities.

• Eliminate high explosive bombing exercises at sea, and implement enhanced mine warfare training capability within the range complex.

Three alternatives were evaluated in the Navy CHPT Range Complex EIS/OEIS:

No Action Alternative: Maintain training and RDT&E operations at current levels to include surge consistent with the FRTP;

Alternative 1: All operations in the No Action Alternative, plus a 10% increase in most training and testing operations, plus changes in type and quantity of operations and tactical employment of forces to accommodate expanded mission areas, force structure changes and new range capabilities. Specifically:

• Train tailored naval units to conduct rapid response anti-piracy, anti-terrorism and maritime interdiction operations (Maritime Security Surge Surface Strike Group);

• Conduct surface-to-air missile training;

• Conduct MH-60R/S helicopter training;

• Conduct training with new Organic Mine Countermeasures systems;

• Increase use of contractor-operated aircraft to support fleet training (Commercial Air Services); and

• Upgrade electronic warfare anti-ship and anti-aircraft threat emitters (Mid-Atlantic Electronic Warfare Range).

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative): All operations in Alternative 1 plus:

• Eliminate bombs at-sea with high explosive warheads.

• Designate mine warfare training areas, some of which can accommodate temporary deployment of training mineshapes, in support of Strike Group mine warfare training events during major exercises.

The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations & Environment) will decide which alternative analyzed in the EIS/OEIS provides the optimum level and mix of training and testing operations and range capabilities enhancements in the Navy CHPT Range Complex that satisfies the purpose and need while considering all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts.

Three alternatives were considered but eliminated from further consideration. These alternatives are:

1. Alternative Range Complex Locations—No single range complex on the East Coast can accommodate the entire spectrum of Navy and Marine Corps training and testing. To maintain a high level of combat readiness for naval forces at best value to the U.S. taxpayer, the Navy and Marine Corps homeported their forces in multiple concentration areas rather than a single area, in part to ensure the surrounding training and testing areas could support their specific needs. The result is a system of range complexes, each optimized to support the limited set of warfare areas that predominate in that locale. The Navy CHPT Range Complex possesses a number of historical and natural features that make it an indispensable component of the Navy's East Coast system of ranges. Other locations do not provide reasonable alternatives for required training purposes/activities described above, and as a result, alternative training locations were eliminated from further consideration.

2. Conduct Simulated Training Only—Under this alternative, only simulated training would be conducted using computer models and classroom training. While the Navy currently makes extensive use of computer simulation and classroom instruction as effective training tools, they cannot exclusively replace live training. Simulation cannot replicate the environment of live coordinated training and major exercises, where multiple ships, submarines and aircraft, and hundreds or thousands of men and women are participating in training activities in a coordinated fashion to accomplish a common military objective. Because of the need to train as we fight, this alternative would fail to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and therefore, is not evaluated further in the EIS/OEIS.

3. Practice Ammunition Use—An alternative that would rely entirely on inert, practice ammunition use within the Navy CHPT Range Complex would not achieve the necessary levels of proficiency in firing weapons in a high stress and realistic environment. Inert, practice ammunition is used throughout the Navy CHPT Range Complex, and provides opportunity to implement a successful, integrated training program while reducing the risk and expense typically associated with live ammunition. However, Navy and Marine Corps personnel need to gain proficiency in handling and employment of ordnance with live warheads in a safe, controlled training environment before entering the inherently unsafe environment of live combat. Consequently, this alternative fails to meet the purpose and need of the proposed action and was not carried forward for analysis.

Nineteen resources and issues were described and analyzed in the EIS/OEIS. These include but are not limited to water resources, air quality, marine communities, marine mammals, sea turtles, fish and essential fish habitat, seabirds and migratory birds, cultural resources, regional economy, and public health and safety. The Navy used subject matter experts, public and agency scoping comments, previous environmental analyses, previous agency consultations, laws, regulations, Executive Orders and resource-specific information in a screening process to identify aspects of the proposed action that could act as stressors to resources and issues evaluated in the EIS/OEIS.

The stressors considered for analysis of environmental consequences include, but are not limited to, vessel movements (disturbance and collisions), aircraft overflights (disturbance and strikes), non-explosive practice munitions, and underwater detonations and high explosive ordnance.

In accordance with 50 CFR 401.12, the Navy submitted a Biological Evaluation to assess the potential effects from the proposed action on marine resources and anadromous fish protected by the NMFS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1371[a][5]), the Navy submitted a request for Letter of Authorization to the NMFS for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the proposed action which was acknowledged by NMFS in a Notice of Receipt published in the Federal Register (Vol. 73, No. 131, pp 38991-38993) on July 08, 2008.

The Navy submitted a Consultation Package in accordance with legal requirements set forth under regulations implementing Section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402; 16 U.S.C 1536 (c)) for listed species under jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The analysis of environmental stressors indicated that implementation of the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 would not result in unavoidable significant adverse effects to resources analyzed. The analysis of environmental stressors and alternatives indicated no significant impact to resources in U.S. territorial waters; likewise, no significant harm in non-territorial waters is expected.

The Navy CHPT Draft EIS/OEIS was distributed to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested individuals and organizations on September 12, 2008. The public comment period will end on October 27, 2008. Copies of the Navy CHPT Draft EIS/OEIS are available for public review at the following libraries: Hatteras Library, 57690 NC Highway 12, Hatteras, NC; New Hanover County Library, 201 Chestnut Street, Wilmington, NC; Webb Memorial Library Center, 812 Evans Street, Morehead City, NC; Onslow County Library, 58 Doris Avenue East, Jacksonville, NC; Kill Devil Hills Branch Library, 400 S. Mustian St., Kill Devil Hills, NC; Havelock-Craven County Public Library, 301 Cunningham Boulevard, Havelock, NC. The Navy CHPT Draft EIS/OEIS is also available for electronic public viewing at: http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/.

A paper copy of the Executive Summary or a single CD with the Navy CHPT Draft EIS/OEIS will be made available upon written request by contacting Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division; Attention: Code EV22SA (Navy CHPT EIS/OEIS PM); 6506 Hampton Blvd.; Norfolk, VA 23508-1278. Facsimile: 757-322-4894. Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties are invited to be present or represented at the public hearing. Written comments can also be submitted during the open house sessions preceding the public hearings.

Oral statements will be heard and transcribed by a stenographer; however, to ensure the accuracy of the record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and written, will become part of the public record on the Draft EIS/OEIS and will be responded to in the Final EIS/OEIS. Equal weight will be given to both oral and written statements. In the interest of available time, and to ensure all who wish to give an oral statement have the opportunity to do so, each speaker's comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. If a long statement is to be presented, it should be summarized at the public hearing with the full text submitted either in writing at the hearing, or mailed or faxed to Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division; Attention: Code EV22SA (Navy CHPT EIS/OEIS PM); 6506 Hampton Blvd.; Norfolk, VA 23508-1278. Facsimile: 757-322-4894. In addition, comments may be submitted on-line at http://www.navycherrypointrangecomplexeis.com/ during the comment period. All written comments must be postmarked by October 27, 2008 to ensure they become part of the official record. All comments will be addressed in the Final EIS/OEIS.

The purpose for the proposed action is to enable the U.S. Navy to train effectively in a shallow water environment (120 to 900 feet in depth) at a suitable location for Atlantic Fleet ASW capable units.

The need for the proposed action is to provide range capabilities for training and equipping combat-capable naval forces ready to deploy worldwide. In this regard, the USWTR furthers the Navy's execution of its Congressionally-mandated roles and responsibilities under Title 10 U.S.C 5062. Training on the USWTR would ensure this Congressional mandate is implemented by allowing the Navy to: effectively equip its forces for deployment to littoral areas worldwide, such as the Arabian Sea; use active sonar to assist in the detection of extremely quiet modern diesel submarines; and train with the actual sensors and weapons systems used in combat to mimic realistic wartime conditions.

The Draft OEIS/EIS evaluates the potential impacts of five alternatives for USWTR including the No Action Alternative. The alternatives were evaluated in the Draft OEIS/EIS to ensure they met the purpose and need, giving due consideration to the following: physiographic features (water depth, range area length/width ratio, shallow/deep water depth ratio, and range orientation to the shoreline), adequacy of support infrastructure (shore landing site for trunk cable and helicopter training and recovery support), climatological criteria (visibility, wind speeds, and wave height), proximity to homeports/air stations (helicopter, submarine, and surface ship homeports), range installation and use (commercial fishing, ocean currents, and bottom type), and non-critical support infrastructure (air space control, shore landing site, and proximity to docking facility for range support craft).

These alternatives include: The No Action Alternative, under which no USWTR would be installed off the east coast of the U.S., although ASW training, including active sonar activities, would continue across Navy operating areas (OPAREAs) and adjacent areas; Site A (Preferred Alternative) which would be located offshore of northeastern Florida in the Jacksonville OPAREA; Site B, located offshore of Charleston, South Carolina in the Charleston OPAREA; Site C, located offshore of southeastern North Carolina, within the Cherry Point OPAREA; and Site D, located offshore of the northeastern coast of Virginia in the VACAPES OPAREA. Two alternative sites, Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of Maine, were eliminated from further consideration because of distance and climatology.

The Draft OEIS/EIS analyzed potential impacts on multiple resources including, but not limited to: The marine environment; biological resources, including threatened and endangered species; and socioeconomic resources. No significant adverse impacts were identified for any resource area for any of the alternatives that cannot be mitigated, with the exception of exposure of marine mammals to underwater sound.

The Navy has applied to NMFS under the Marine Mammal Protection Act for a Letter of Authorization and governing regulations to authorize incidental takes of marine mammals that may result from operation of the proposed USWTR. The Navy is consulting with NMFS under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on the potential for effects on sea turtles from installation and operation of the proposed range.

The USWTR Draft OEIS/EIS was distributed to Federal, State, and local agencies, elected officials, and other interested individuals and organizations on September 12, 2008. The public comment period will end on October 27, 2008. Copies of the USWTR Draft OEIS/EIS are available for public review at the following libraries: Chincoteague Island Library, 4077 Main Street, Chincoteague, VA; Eastern Shore Public Library, 23610 Front Street, Accomac, VA; Virginia Beach Central Library, 4100 Virginia Beach Boulevard, Virginia Beach, VA; Worcester County Library, Ocean City Branch, 200 14th Street, Ocean City, MD; Wicomico County Free Library, 122 South Division Street, Salisbury, MD; Carteret County Public Library, 210 Turner Street, Beaufort, NC; Onslow County Public Library, 58 Doris Avenue East, Jacksonville, NC; Charleston County Library, 68 Calhoun Street, Charleston, SC; and Jacksonville Public Library, Regency Square Branch, 9900 Regency Boulevard, Jacksonville, FL.

The USWTR Draft OEIS/EIS is also available for electronic public viewing at http://projects.earthtech.com/uswtr/. A paper copy of the Executive Summary or a single CD with the USWTR Draft OEIS/EIS will be made available upon written request by contacting Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division; Attention: Code EV22LL (USWTR OEIS/EIS PM); 6506 Hampton Blvd; Norfolk, VA 23508-1278. Facsimile: 804-200-5568. Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties are invited to be present or represented at the public hearing. Written comments can also be submitted during the open house sessions preceding the public hearings.

Oral statements will be heard and transcribed by a stenographer; however, to ensure the accuracy of the record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and written, will become part of the public record on the Draft OEIS/EIS and will be responded to in the Final OEIS/EIS. Equal weight will be given to both oral and written statements. In the interest of available time, and to ensure all who wish to give an oral statement have the opportunity to do so, each speaker's comments will be limited to three (3) minutes. If a long statement is to be presented, it should be summarized at the public hearing with the full text submitted either in writing at the hearing, or mailed or faxed to Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division; Attention: Code EV22LL (USWTR OEIS/EIS PM); 6506 Hampton Blvd; Norfolk, VA 23508-1278. Facsimile: 804-200-5568.

In addition, comments may be submitted on-line at http://projects.earthtech.com/uswtr/ during the comment period. All written comments must be postmarked by October 27, 2008 to ensure they become part of the official record. All comments will be addressed in the Final OEIS/EIS.

Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

The Hawaii Department of Human Services, Vocational Rehabilitation and Services for the Blind Division, the State Licensing Agency (SLA) alleged violations by the United States Department of Defense, Department of the Navy (Navy) of the Act, and the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395. Specifically, the SLA alleged the Navy improperly denied the SLA's request to establish a Randolph-Sheppard vending facility at three parcels of real property located at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. The Navy owned the parcels but leased them to private entities as described in this notice.

In 1999, Congress gave the Navy authority to lease or convey real and personal property in Hawaii that was not needed for Navy operations. On June 30, 2003, the Navy entered into a lease with Fluor Hawaii, LLC, which was terminated in April 2007, covering an area of property at Pearl Harbor immediately adjacent to the USS Arizona Memorial Visitor Center that is known as Halawa Landing. The lease granted exclusive use and possession of the property for a term of 65 years and provided that the property be used solely for a support facility for visitor attractions.

In November 2004, the lessee entered into an agreement with the Pearl Harbor Visitor Center (PHVC) providing for the provision of visitors services at Halawa Landing including but not limited to food, beverage, bag storage, and visitor information. Between late 2004 and early 2007, PHVC operated several food concessions and other visitor services in a large white tent constructed on a portion of the Halawa Landing property adjacent to the primary parking lot used by visitors. A blind vendor operated a food stand at the entrance to that complex pursuant to a concession granted by the National Park Service.

In June 2003, the Navy entered into a lease with a private party for Ford Island, which covered certain Pearl Harbor property on which old and underutilized airplane hangars stood. In 2006, the lessee subleased a portion of the area to the Pacific Aviation Museum (PAM) at Pearl Harbor. The PAM included a cafe, which sold a variety of food and beverages.

On July 7, 1986, the Navy leased certain property near Halawa Landing for the sole purpose of establishing a museum. Inside the museum, known as the USS Bowfin Museum, was a hot dog cart where, in addition to hot dogs, sandwiches, snacks, beverages, and ice cream, some nonfood items were sold.

The SLA alleged that the three parcels of real property at the Pearl Harbor Naval base leased by Navy to a private entity were in violation of the Act that authorizes blind persons to operate vending facilities on any Federal property. Navy responded that the Act did not apply to leased property. After several informal attempts to resolve this dispute, the SLA filed for Federal arbitration in February 2006. A hearing on this matter was held on July 25, 2007.

The issues heard by the arbitration panel were: whether the act applies to real property owned by Navy if leased to a private entity and whether an arbitration panel convened under the Act can award monetary damages.

After reviewing all of the records and hearing testimony of witnesses, the panel ruled for the Navy. While finding the Act ambiguous with regard to whether the priority provisions of the Act at 20 U.S.C. 107(b) applies to Federally owned property that has been leased to a private entity, the panel concluded, based on legislative history as well as the text of the Act and its implementing regulations, that the priority applies only on property “controlled, maintained, or operated by Federal agencies.”

Specifically, the panel majority found that Congress had authorized the Secretary of the Navy to sell or lease any property in excess of the needs of the Navy. The Navy entered into lease agreements granting exclusive use and possession of the leased properties. With respect to the USS Bowfin Museum, the arbitration panel determined that, because no cafe or cafeteria was planned for the museum, the SLA's claims regarding the museum were moot. With respect to the Halawa Landing and PAM properties, the majority concluded that the priority did not apply because the Navy did not control the leased properties.

Furthermore, the panel concluded that the satisfactory site provisions of the Act did not apply because no Federal employees used the properties and there was not any Federal office space located there. Based upon the foregoing, the panel ruled that the Act's priority did not apply to these properties leased by the Navy.

Lastly, although stating that the concession area in the white tent at Halawa Landing apparently damaged the blind vendor financially, the panel concluded that the Act does not prohibit competition except in instances where vending machines are in direct competition with a blind vendor's facility, which did not occur here. In addition, the panel concluded that the SLA would not be entitled to damages even if the Navy violated the Act because the Act does not authorize the panel to make damages awards. One panel member concurred with the majority opinion and one panel member dissented.

The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

The Deputy Secretary of Energy approved Rate Order No. WAPA-117 on August 1, 2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 47823). This Order included existing Rate Schedule SLIP-F8 for SLCA/IP firm power. 1 The existing firm power Rate Schedule SLIP-F8 is being superseded by Rate Schedule SLIP-F9. Under Rate Schedule SLIP-F8, the energy rate is 10.43 mills/kilowatthour (mills/kWh), and the capacity rate is $4.43/kilowattmonth ($/kWmonth). The composite rate is 25.28 mills/kWh. The provisional firm power rate will be implemented over a 2-year period. In the first year, the provisional firm power rate consists of an energy charge of 11.06 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $4.70/kWmonth. The second step of the rate will be effective October 1, 2009, and will be capped at the energy charge of 12.29 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $5.22/kWmonth. The provisional rates for SLCA/IP firm power in Rate Schedule SLIP-F9 will result in an overall composite rate of 26.80 mills/kWh on October 1, 2008, and a composite rate capped at 29.68 mills/kWh on October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2013, or until superseded. This second step rate adjustment will result in an overall increase of about 17.4 percent when compared with the existing SLCA/IP firm power composite rate under Rate Schedule SLIP-F8.

The firm power rate will continue to include a cost recovery mechanism called the Cost Recovery Charge (CRC). The CRC is necessary to adequately maintain a sufficient cash balance in the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund. The CRC is a charge on Sustainable Hydropower (SHP) energy, as determined by financial conditions. Every May, Western will provide customers with information concerning any anticipated CRC for the upcoming fiscal year (FY). If Western determines a CRC is necessary, firm power customers may choose not to take as much firm energy and, in exchange, Western will waive the CRC charge. In addition to the potential for a CRC being implemented every year, Western will consider assessing the CRC upon a 45-day notice to customers, should water releases at Glen Canyon Dam be reduced to less than 8.23 million acre-feet (MAF) in a FY.

By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator, (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy, and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand or to disapprove such rates to FERC. Existing Department of Energy procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985.

Under Delegation Order Nos. 00-037.00 and 00-001.00A, 10 CFR part 903, and 18 CFR part 300, I hereby confirm, approve, and place Rate Order No. WAPA-137, the proposed SLCA/IP firm power rate, CRSP firm and non-firm transmission rates, and ancillary services rates into effect on an interim basis.

The new Rate Schedules SLIP-F9, SP-PTP7, SP-NW3, SP-NFT6, SP-SD3, SP-RS3, SP-EI3, SP-FR3, and SP-SSR3 will be promptly submitted to FERC for confirmation and approval on a final basis.

These rates were established in accordance with section 302 of the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). This Act transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)), and other acts that specifically apply to the project involved.

By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator, (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy, and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand or to disapprove such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985.

As used in this Rate Order, the following acronyms and definitions apply:

The new interim rates will take effect on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after October 1, 2008, and will remain in effect until September 30, 2013, pending approval by FERC on a final basis.

Western followed the Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions, 10 CFR part 903, in developing these rates. The steps Western took to involve interested parties in the rate process were:

1. The proposed rate adjustment process began May 30, 2007, when Western mailed a notice announcing an informal customer meeting on June 19, 2007, to all SLCA/IP customers and interested parties.

2. On June 19, 2007, August 21, 2007, and October 10, 2007, beginning at 10:30 a.m., informal customer meetings were held to discuss the components and rationale for the rate adjustment, to discuss possible rate designs, and to answer questions.

3. A Federal Register notice, published on January 4, 2008 (73 FR 858), announced the proposed rate adjustments for the SLCA/IP, CRSP Transmission, and Ancillary Services Rates. This publication began a public consultation and comment period and announced the public information and public comment forums.

4. On January 11, 2008, Western's CRSP MC mailed all SLCA/IP preference customers, CRSP transmission customers, and interested parties letters along with the Rate Brochure, which contains a copy of the published Federal Register notice proposal and a reminder of the February 5, 2008, public information forum.

5. On February 5, 2008, beginning at 1:30 p.m., Western held a public information forum at the Radisson Hotel Salt Lake City Airport, Salt Lake City, Utah. Western provided detailed explanations of the proposed SLCA/IP firm power rate and the CRSP transmission and ancillary service rates. Western provided Rate Brochures, supporting documentation, and informational handouts at this meeting.

6. On March 4, 2008, beginning at 1:30 p.m., Western held a comment forum at the Radisson Hotel Salt Lake City Airport, Salt Lake City, Utah, to give the public an opportunity to comment for the record. Western also notified its customers of its intent to extend the comment and consultation period through May 5, 2008, and to hold additional information and comment forums.

7. On March 12, 2008, Western's CRSP MC mailed a flyer to all SLCA/IP customers, CRSP transmission customers, and interested parties notifying them of a second public information forum and a second comment forum.

8. A Federal Register notice, published March 24, 2008 (73 FR 15519), announced the extension of the comment and consultation period for the SLCA/IP firm power, CRSP transmission and ancillary services rates.

9. On March 24, 2008, CRSP MC mailed all SLCA/IP customers, CRSP transmission customers, and interested parties a letter with a copy of the published FRN extending the comment and consultation period for the SLCA/IP firm power, CRSP transmission and ancillary services rates.

10. On April 10, 2008, beginning at 1:30 p.m., Western held its second public information forum at the Bureau of Reclamation, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, Room 8102, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah.

11. On April 10, 2008, beginning at 2:35 p.m., Western held its second comment forum at the Bureau of Reclamation, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, Room 8102, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah.

12. Western received 17 comment letters during the consultation and comment period, which ended May 5, 2008. All formally submitted comments have been considered in preparing this Rate Order.

Written comments were received from the following organizations:

Representatives of the following organizations made oral comments:

The SLCA/IP consists of the CRSP, Rio Grande, and Collbran projects. The CRSP includes two participating projects that have power facilities: the Dolores and Seedskadee projects. Western integrated the Rio Grande and Collbran projects with CRSP for marketing and ratemaking purposes on October 1, 1987. The goals of integration were to increase marketable resources, simplify contract and rate development and project administration by creating one rate and to ensure repayment of the Projects' costs. All Integrated Projects maintain their individual identities for financial accounting and repayment purposes, but their revenue requirements are integrated into the SLCA/IP PRS for ratemaking.

Western prepares a PRS each FY to determine if revenues will be sufficient to repay, within the required time, all costs assigned to the SLCA/IP. Repayment criteria are based on policies (including DOE Order RA 6120.2) and authorizing law.

Provisional rates for SLCA/IP firm power result in an overall composite rate increase of approximately 17.4 percent, when compared to the existing SLCA/IP firm power rates in Rate Schedule SLIP-F8. The current composite rate under Rate Schedule SLIP-F8 is 25.28 mills/kWh. The provisional rates for SLCA/IP firm power in Rate Schedule SLIP-F9 will be implemented over a 2-year period resulting in a composite rate of 26.80 mills/kWh on October 1, 2008, and a composite rate capped at 29.68 mills/kWh on October 1, 2009. In the first year, the provisional firm power rate consists of an energy charge of 11.06 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $4.70/kWmonth. The second step of the rate will be effective October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2013, or until superseded. The energy charge will not exceed 12.29 mills/kWh and the capacity charge will not exceed $5.22/kWmonth. The actual rates for the second step will be determined using 2008 actual data, updated estimates for purchased power and transmission, as well as other revised estimates that could affect the rate. Western will provide customers an opportunity to comment on the second step during a meeting scheduled for June 2009. The following table compares the current and proposed firm power rates.

Western is proposing to continue the CRC calculation and assessment in the proposed rate schedule as it is in the current SLIP-F8 rate schedule and to add an additional triggering mechanism.

The CRC is based on a Basin Fund cash analysis only and is independent of the PRS calculations. In the event that expenses significantly exceed estimates and in order to adequately recover and maintain a sufficient balance in the Basin Fund, Western will calculate and assess a CRC. The CRC is designed to maintain a Basin Fund Target Balance (BFTB) for the following FY and to limit the FY loss to the Basin Fund. The BFTB will be equal to 15 percent of the upcoming FY's total expenses but not less than $20 million. The allowable FY loss is limited to no more than 25 percent of the Basin Fund Beginning Balance (BFBB). For purposes of explaining how the CRC is calculated, please refer to Rate Schedule SLIP-F9.

In the event that Reclamation's 24-month study projects that Glen Canyon Dam water releases will drop below 8.23 MAF in a water year (October through September), Western will recalculate the CRC to include those lower estimates of hydropower generation and the estimated costs for any additional purchased power. Western, as in the yearly projection for the CRC, will give the customers a 45-day notice, during which they may request a waiver of the CRC by voluntarily taking less energy than allowed under the customer's Firm Electric Service contract. This recalculation will remain in effect for the remainder of the current FY. In the event that hydropower generation returns to 8.23 MAF or higher during the CRC implementation, a new CRC will be calculated for the next month, and the customers will be notified.

Since the annual determination of the CRC is based upon estimates, an annual prior year adjustment (PYA) will be calculated. The CRC PYA for subsequent years will be determined by comparing the prior year's estimated firming energy cost to the prior year's actual firming energy cost for the energy provided above the Waiver Level. The PYA will result in an increase or decrease to a customer's firm energy costs over the course of the following year. Please see Rate Schedule SLIP-F9 rate schedule for further explanation of the PYA calculation.

Western will provide its customers with information concerning the anticipated CRC for the upcoming FY in May. The established CRC will be in effect for the entire FY. The table below displays the time frame for determining the amount of purchases needed, developing customer's load schedules, and making purchases.

The proposed firm and non-firm transmission rates apply to all transmission-only sales. The present CRSP point-to-point, network, and non-firm transmission rates, outlined in Rate Schedules SP-PTP6, SP-NW2, and SP-NFT5 became effective on October 1, 2002. On June 29, 2007, the Deputy Secretary of Energy extended the transmission rates through September 30, 2010. The transmission rates include the cost for scheduling, system control, and dispatch service. Western is proposing that these three rates remain in effect for this new ratesetting period. The cost of transmission service for Western's SLCA/IP long-term electric service will continue to be included in the SLCA/IP firm power rate. Transmission services are outlined in Western's Tariff.

Western is proposing to use the current methodology, which is an annual fixed charge formula, to determine the revenue requirement to be recovered from firm and non-firm transmission service. The annual transmission revenue requirement includes O&M expenses, administrative and general expenses, interest expense, and depreciation expense. This methodology is updated annually using a test year, which is the most recent historical data available. This revenue requirement is offset by appropriate CRSP transmission system revenues.

The provisional rate for network transmission service is a formula calculation based on the annual transmission revenue requirement. There are no changes to the existing network integration transmission service formula under Rate Schedule SP-NW2.

Western is seeking the continued approval of a rate formula for calculation of the firm point-to-point transmission rate to be applied annually. The provisional rate for firm point-to-point transmission service is $2.21/kWmonth for FY 2008.

The firm point-to-point transmission rate is based upon the most recent historical year, using an annual fixed-charge methodology. The annual transmission revenue requirement is reduced by revenue credits such as non-firm transmission, existing contracts at different rates, scheduling and dispatch services, and phase-shifter revenues. The resultant net annual transmission revenue requirement is divided by the capacity reservation needed to meet firm power and transmission-only commitments in kW, including the total network integration loads at system peak, to derive a cost/kWyear. The formula is updated every year by applying the most current historical test year. If needed, a revised rate will become effective every October 1. The rate formula is proposed to be effective October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2013.

The cost/kWyear is calculated using the following formula:

The proposed rate for non-firm point-to-point CRSP transmission service is a mills/kWh rate, which is based upon the current firm point-to-point rate and may be discounted. This rate will remain in effect concurrently with the firm point-to-point rate and will also be reviewed annually. Transmission availability will be posted on Western's OASIS.

The proposed rate for network transmission is a calculation based upon the annual revenue requirement then in effect, as determined by the annual fixed charge methodology.

Six ancillary services will continue to be offered by CRSP MC, two of which are required as part of CRSP transmission service. These are (1) Scheduling, system control, and dispatch service and (2) reactive supply, and voltage control service. The remaining four ancillary services are (3) regulation and frequency response service, (4) energy imbalance service, (5) spinning reserve service, and (6) supplemental reserve service. These will be offered either from the balancing authority or from the CRSP MC Merchant Function. Sales of regulation and frequency response, energy imbalance, spinning reserve, and supplemental reserve services from SLCA/IP power resources are limited since Western has allocated the SLCA/IP power resources to preference entities under long-term commitments. Western has made a clarification to its spinning and supplemental reserve ancillary services and has removed its reference to the Western System Power Pool Agreement. Western will continue to use market-based rates to determine its rate for spinning and supplemental reserves under the Rate Schedule SSP-SSR3. The availability and type of ancillary service will be determined based on excess resources available at the time the services are requested, except for the two ancillary services required to be provided in conjunction with the sale of CRSP transmission services.

Since the CRSP transmission system lies in two balancing authorities, operated by Western's RMR and DSW, many of the ancillary services are offered through their respective balancing authorities.

The provisional rates for ancillary services are designed to recover only the costs associated with providing the service(s). The costs for providing scheduling, system control, and dispatch service are included in the appropriate provisional transmission services rates. However, the charges for reactive supply and voltage control service will be in accordance with Western's RMR and DSW applicable rate schedules.

A comparison of the existing and provisional SLCA/IP firm power rates, CRSP Transmission and Ancillary Services, follows:

Western's Administrator certified that the provisional rates for SLCA/IP firm power, CRSP transmission, and ancillary services are the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. The provisional rates were developed following administrative policies and applicable laws.

According to Reclamation Law, Western must establish power rates sufficient to recover O&M expenses, purchased power expenses, interest expenses, and repayment of power investment and irrigation aid.

The existing rate for SLCA/IP firm power under Rate Schedule SLIP-F8 expires September 30, 2010. Effective October 1, 2008, Rate Schedule SLIP-F8 will be superseded by the new rates in Rate Schedule SLIP-F9. The provisional rates for SLCA/IP firm power consist of a capacity rate and an energy rate. The provisional rates for SLCA/IP firm power in Rate Schedule SLIP-F9 will result in a composite rate of 26.80 mills/kWh on October 1, 2008, and a composite rate capped at 29.68 mills/kWh on October 1, 2009. The provisional firm power rate will be implemented over a 2-year period. In the first year, the provisional firm power rate consists of an energy charge of 11.06 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $4.70/kWmonth. The second step of the rate will be effective October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2013, or until superseded, and will be capped at the energy charge of 12.29 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $5.22/kWmonth.

The following table provides a summary of projected revenue and expense data for the SLCA/IP firm power rate through the 5-year provisional rate approval period.

The existing rates for SLCA/IP firm power in Rate Schedule SLIP-F8 no longer provide sufficient revenues to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repayment of investment and irrigation aid within the allowable periods. The adjusted rates reflect increases primarily in O&M costs and purchased power and transmission costs. The provisional rates will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and to repay power investment and irrigation aid within the allowable periods. To coincide with the start of each FY, the provisional rates for the first step will take effect on October 1, 2008. The provisional rates for the second step will take effect on October 1, 2009, and remain in effect through September 30, 2013.

Provisions for transformer losses adjustment, power factor adjustment, WRP administrative charge, and CDP administrative charge adjustments are part of the provisional rates for SLCA/IP firm power. Western will not modify the provisions and methodologies for these adjustments, which will remain as specified in Rate Schedule SLIP-F9.

The comments and responses regarding the firm power rate, paraphrased for brevity when not affecting the meaning of the statement(s), are discussed below. Direct quotes from comment letters are used for clarity where necessary. The rate process issues discussed are (1) Firm Power Rate Design, (2) Cost Recovery Charge, (3) Stepped Rate, (4) Basin Fund, (5) Revenue, (6) Western Expenses, (7) Reclamation Expenses and Related Issues, (8) Project Use, (9) Environmental, (10) Hydrology, (11) Transmission and Ancillary Services, and (12) Miscellaneous.

Comment: Many customers expressed appreciation for the CRSP MC and its willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, entertain suggestions, and develop alternatives to mitigate significant rate increases.

Response: The CRSP MC is likewise appreciative of the customers' support.

Comment: Pages 6 and 8 of the Rate Brochure reference the “ratesetting period” of 17 years as opposed to 20 years. Please explain why a different ratesetting period was used. Are the current rates in effect based upon a 20-year ratesetting period?

Response: The current rate is based on a 20-year ratesetting period. The ratesetting period begins the year the rate took effect (FY 2006) and continues through the pinch point year (FY 2025). The pinch point year is the year of the PRS that has the largest revenue requirements.

The proposed rate will take effect in October 2008, which is the beginning of FY 2009. Since the proposed ratesetting period extends through the same pinch point year, the ratesetting period of the proposed rate is 3 years shorter than that of the current rate.

Comment: Some customers requested copies of all documents and information used to develop the cost basis for the O&M component of the new rate included in the PRS.

Response: Documents and information used to develop the cost basis for the O&M component of the rate proposal were included in the Supporting Documentation Booklet, specifically Tab 10, which had been previously provided to requestors. In addition, the requestors were sent copies of the CRSP MC Work Program Review documents for FY 2006 through FY 2010.

Comment: One commenter asked Western to explain on what basis Western could extend the collection of revenues for apportionment such that rate impacts of those obligations are reduced.

Response: Western adheres specifically to section 5(e) of the CRSP Act, which requires the inclusion of the apportionment of revenues for the States, in the Power Repayment Studies. In addition, DOE Order RA6120.2 provides further clarification of the treatment of repayment periods, specifically in section 12(b)(5), which states “expected revenues are at least sufficient to recover other costs such as payments to basin funds, Participating Projects or States.”

Comment: One commenter asked Western, “Please run the PRS and provide the results excluding the funds categorized as `Available w/Appor' found behind Tab 19 of the CRSP MC Supporting Documentation for Proposed Rates: SLCA/IP Firm Power, CRSP Transmission & Ancillary Services dates January 2008 on the sheet titled `Colorado River Storage Project, Aid to Participating Projects Irrigation Repayment Obligations and Apportioned Revenue Applied' totaling $642,582,791, which are not tied to authorized projects.”

Response: The proposed rate includes the apportionment revenues required to be collected through FY 2025 (about $368 million). The PRS was rerun without the excess revenue collection for apportionment required by the CRSP Act. Removing these apportionment collections from the repayment period lowered the composite rate by 2.61 mills/kWh.

Comment: Multiple comments were received concerning the inclusion of apportionment revenue collection in the rate, mentioning that $368 million of revenues for apportionment payments would be received by FY 2025. The customers objected to the inclusion of these apportionment revenues in the ratesetting period and recommended that apportionment costs associated with unauthorized, unconstructed projects be programmed into the PRS beyond the pinch point year.

Response: Section 5(e) of the CRSP Act specifies that revenues in the Basin Fund in excess of the amounts needed to defray the cost of operation, maintenance and replacement of the CRSP Project, and to return to the general fund of the Treasury costs allocated to power, municipal water supply, irrigation and salinity control shall be apportioned to the four Upper Colorado Basin States to assist in the repayment of participating projects located within these States. Section 5(e) specifies that such excess “revenues in the Basin Fund * * * shall be apportioned among the states of the Upper Division in the following percentages: Colorado, 46 per centum; Utah, 21.5 per centum; Wyoming, 15.5 per centum; and New Mexico, 17 per centum * * *.” Funds so apportioned must be used only for the repayment of construction costs of participating units located in the states to which such revenues are apportioned.

Comment: A commenter stated that approximately 60 percent of the proposed rate increase appears to be due to apportionment expenses associated with presently non-existent, unauthorized projects.

Response: The comment correctly observes that removing the apportionment obligation from the proposed rate would reduce the proposed rate increase by approximately 60 percent; however, as discussed above, the apportionment obligation is required by law, and as such, the apportionment obligations are already included in the current rate and therefore play no part in the proposed 17 percent increase. The 17 percent increase is due mainly to O&M and purchased power and transmission expense, not because of adding “new” Participating Projects costs.

Comment: A comment was received referring to the 1983 agreement between Reclamation and Western that provides guidance for inclusion of Participating Projects into the PRS and believes that Western should follow this guidance.

Response: Western currently abides by the 1983 agreement when including Participating Projects into the PRS by including only those authorized Participating Projects costs in the rate that meet the criteria. The apportionment methodology is then applied toward those projects.

Comment: On what basis, other than historic practice or internal agency opinion, does Western justify inclusions of continued apportionment funds for non-authorized projects in the PRS?

Response: Western adheres to the CRSP Act, specifically section 5, which requires the inclusion of the Participating Projects and the apportionment of revenues in the PRS. In addition, DOE Order RA 6120.2, specifically section 12(b)(5), states, “expected revenues are at least sufficient to recover other costs such as payments to basin funds, Participating Projects or States.” Western's obligation to collect apportionment revenues is independent of a state's authorization to spend their apportioned revenues.

Comment: A commenter states it is undisputed that the current rate will collect sufficient revenues to meet all proposed expenditures over the 5-year rate window.

Response: It is true that the current rate will collect sufficient revenues for a 5-year, rate cost evaluation period. However, DOE Order RA 6120.2, section 12, requires revenues to be sufficient to recover annual expenses and repayment through the ratesetting period (through FY 2025 in this ratesetting PRS). According to Reclamation Law, Western must establish power rates sufficient to recover O&M expenses, purchased power expenses, interest expenses, and repayment of power investment and irrigation aid. For the current 17-year ratesetting period, from FY 2009 through FY 2025, the current rate is not sufficient to cover expenses and repayment through this period. The current rate shows deficits in some of these years, including the final year of the study; therefore, the proposed rate adjustment is needed.

Comment: Many comments were received stating that the comment period closing on May 5 was before the end of the formal FY 2010 WPR period of May 21 and wanted to ensure their comments on the FY 2010 WPR were incorporated into the final Rate Order. Some comments suggested Western extend the comment period for this rate process another 30 days, closing on June 4, 2008. Others recommended that the O&M components of this rate proceeding continue to be scrubbed and refined in consultation with the customers prior to finalization of this rate proposal. One commenter went on to state, “because the formal work program process has not yet concluded prior to the comment deadline * * * we reserve the right to comment on those adjustments prior to finalization of the rate.”

Response: Western's FY 2010 WPR has been finalized; however, Western is committed to continue to work with its customers to try to reduce the budgeted estimates. Western also believes that since the second step is capped, the second step firm power rate can be reduced if the budget estimates are too high. In addition, Western is willing to work with its customers on the FY 2011 budget process which will be used to determine the second step of the rate that will be effective October 1, 2009.

Comments: When will the FY 2010 WPR materials be available, and when will a new PRS be run with updated data? Will this update be provided before the comment forum, or will it be after the comment forum and before the close of the comment period? When will the FY 2010 WPR be finalized?

Response: The WPR process for the FY 2010 budget was held on February 28, 2008. Western has since reviewed those costs to streamline them as much as possible. Western presented these updates to planned O&M costs based on the updated FY 2010 WPR in the second public information forum, which was held on April 10, 2008.

Comment: Another customer encouraged Western to come to some decisions so they can incorporate the forecasted rates into their budget planning process.

Response: Western recognizes that its customers have a budget planning process and the rate adjustment has an effect on its customers' internal processes. Western will be forthcoming with the final rates as soon as the Acting Deputy Secretary places the rates into effect on an interim basis.

Comment: A comment was made that the early portions of the Rate Brochure indicate the CRC would remain in effect for an entire FY. However, page 17 proposes triggering criteria with a 45-day customer notice.

Response: The firm power rate proposal includes the CRC similar to the existing rate except that it also includes a new, additional, triggering criteria caused by reduced releases from Glen Canyon Dam. This new triggering criteria has the same 45-day customer notice as the Basin Fund balance criteria, but could occur whenever Reclamation's 24-month study indicates Glen Canyon water releases will be reduced to less than 8.23 million acre-feet in a water year. This can happen any time during the year.

Comment: A comment was made regarding the CRC and the example shown on page 14 of the Rate Brochure. The commenter asked if the calculation of annual expenses includes other revenues as an expense offset or are they included in total revenue.

Response: The CRC includes all revenues and expenses. No offsetting of revenue or expenses occurs except for the purpose of calculating the CRC, non-reimbursable environmental expenses are capped at $27 million and indexed for inflation.

Comment: Several customers referenced a CRC “adjuster” or credit mechanism whereby when actual purchased power expenses do not meet projections, a credit would be returned to the firm power customers similar to one in place at the Southwestern Power Administration. “Consider if FX is less than projected, the differential could be spread over all MWh, OR if FA is greater than FARR, the differential could be a credit.”

Response: The CRC already includes a PYA true-up from estimates to actuals. For Western to implement an adjustment similar to Southwestern Power Administration, purchased power would have to be unbundled from the firm power rate. The current method of socializing all purchased power costs into the SLCA/IP firm electric service rate would not be conducive to using a purchased power adjustment. The CRC includes a PYA true-up from estimates to actuals that is only applicable to those customers actually assessed a CRC because they are the ones who paid the estimated costs of purchasing additional firming energy. The customers who receive a CRC waiver acquire their needed additional energy elsewhere.

Comment: What internal process(es) would be required in order to change the CRSP MC ratemaking methodology from the pinch point to another methodology? Is Western open to this type of discussion?

Response: Western would be willing to discuss any ratemaking methodology that is within its constraints of law and policy.

Comment: When will the decision be made whether or not Western will implement the stepped rate?

Response: Western has decided to implement the stepped rate with the first step being effective October 1, 2008.

Comment: How would the stepped rate work? Would the rate be one certain percentage, and in the second year the rates would automatically go up? Would the rate be based on the most current PRS in that year?

Response: The first year will be a composite rate of 26.80 mills/kWh, which is a 6 percent increase. The second step will be capped at 29.68 mills/kWh for the composite rate. This would be the maximum amount for the second step. The second step rate will be determined by using FY 2008 actual data, updated estimates for purchased power and transmission, as well as other estimates that could affect the rate. As of now, and for analysis purposes, the total composite rate of 29.68 mills/kWh will be effective October 1, 2009.

Comment: The majority of customers requested that Western consider delaying the proposed SLCA/IP rate adjustment by at least 1 year, stating that because there are a number of uncertainties associated with the proposed rate that may be resolved, thereby eliminating or reducing the need for such a high rate by October 1, 2009. These customers recommend a deferment of the rate until October 1, 2009. In the event Western is unable to defer the rate process, they recommend the implementation of a stepped rate with the first step October 1, 2008, of zero percent and the second step October 1, 2009, not to exceed 18 percent.

Response: Western believes that implementation of a zero-percent increase in the first year is the same as a 1-year deferment of the rate adjustment and is not fiscally responsible. Western is implementing a stepped rate with the first step being 26.80 mills/kWh, which is a 6 percent increase. The second step will not exceed the cap of 29.68 mills/kWh for an overall 17.4 percent increase from the current 25.28 mills/kWh rate. Western believes that this will allow sufficient time to adjust projections based on the current uncertainties and possibly a second step increase that is less than current projections.

The second step will use the FY 2008 Final PRS, the FY 2011 WPR with the same 5-year cost evaluation period (2008-2012), the April 2009, 24-month study from Reclamation, and the most current data available for all other projections.

Comment: Please provide an accounting of revenues and expenses which would explain the Basin Fund climbing from $40 million at the end of FY 2005 to $80 million at the end of the current operating year.

Response: There are many variables that affect the Basin Fund balance increase; however, the main reason for the increase is the almost $116 million collected from power revenues for interest expense and principal payments during the years FY 2006 through FY 2008. The main offset to these collections is non-reimbursable environmental expenses.

In addition, Western has not been able to return funds to Treasury since FY 1999 because of the continued drought. If the Basin Fund continues to be as healthy as it is today, Western is planning to return funds to Treasury this FY to satisfy the return of interest and principal obligations, as required under the CRSP Act.

Comment: Several comments on the projected “healthy” ending balance of the Basin Fund suggest the rate process is not necessary. A commenter cited that Western has announced if the ending FY 2008 Basin Fund balance is at the current projected level, Western will probably make a transfer of funds to Treasury. They further stated that “under these circumstances, holding the rate steady while adjusting for significantly increased hydrology and a change in law is perfectly appropriate and the sound course of action”.

Response: Western reiterates the fact that the balance in the Basin Fund does not determine the need for a rate process. In accordance with DOE Order RA 6120.2, if revenues are not sufficient to cover expenses and repayment obligations as determined by the PRS, the current rate is inadequate and must be adjusted.

Comment: One commenter stated concern that “the fund itself may evaporate, for which Western has identified no contingencies. Such revenue losses would have tremendous repercussions on funding for those environmental programs to reduce salinity and remove jeopardy for endangered fish.”

Response: Environmental program expenses are non-reimbursable by the power customers and are not included in the PRS for ratemaking purposes. However, the programs are funded out of the Basin Fund, and the costs are credited as funds returned to Treasury for repayment of CRSP obligations.

Comment: A commenter asked Western to explain the assumed reduction in transmission revenue given the strategic planning process to improve transmission marketing services and if the transmission revenues used in this PRS factor in the new increased transmission rate.

Response: Firm transmission revenue estimates in the PRS are based on firm contracts and rates currently in place. Non-firm transmission revenue estimates are based on a 5-year average of historical data. Western has no way to estimate increased revenues that may occur due to efforts to improve transmission marketing services.

Comment: One commenter requested the first part of 2008 be included in the historical averages.

Response: Western only used actuals from FY 2003 through FY 2007. Western will include FY 2004 through FY 2008, when determining the second step of the firm power rate that will be effective October 1, 2009.

Comment: One commenter questioned, “Given Western's work on operational consolidation, what are the implications for this rate process, and specifically, what impacts will there be on RMR's work on the new billing system?”

Responses: The increase in power billing is related to RMR information technology (IT) staff that will be supporting the new power billing system. Over the last 3 to 4 years, the Sierra Nevada Region maintained the old system with minimal enhancements for RMR. As a result, the IT support costs have been very negligible. While the billing system is being developed, the costs will be capitalized. After that time, additional support will be expected the first year or so to get the system running smoothly and to document processes. As for cost allocation of the new power billing system, additional information will be provided next year. RMR and the CRSP MC will work with their customers on the allocation methodology based on the design of the new system and various other factors.

Comment: One customer wanted to know if the “50-5-5” expenses drop back to a lower level after FY 2010.

Response: The 50-5-5 initiative (50 “over-hires,” over 5 years, at an approximate cost of $5 million) is a recent Western-wide program designed to hire new staff into trainee positions as part of Western's succession planning. The funding for these additional over-hire positions has been placed in Western's FY 2010 budget submissions. The intent of this program is that for each trainee hired, there is a target retirement position. Once these retirements occur, the trainees will fill these positions and staffing levels will become flat again in FY 2013 and beyond.

Comment: A commenter wanted to know if the amounts included in the ratesetting PRS take into account the new legislation with a cap on security costs. In addition, they wanted to know how the future years' projected amounts were derived, and what basis was used for the 94.7 percent share to power. They suggest the rate process should be deferred until the impacts of the security cost cap are known.

Response: At this time, these amounts do not factor in the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, which includes the limitation of costs to customers of security activities at Reclamation dams. Currently, the future year projected amount is based on amounts through the FY 2010 WPR. Western has not received updated security expenses from Reclamation that reflect impacts of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. Western plans to continue to work with Reclamation, and these expenses are expected to be updated and applied in the second step of this rate adjustment. The 94.7 percent share to power is based on an average of allocation factors used for the CRSP units.

Comment: What is the status of the Glen Canyon cost allocation study?

Response: Reclamation has tasked Argonne National Laboratory to study the cost allocation revisions on the Glen Canyon reallocation. Reclamation will be reviewing this work in the near future.

Comment: What is the status of Reclamation's analysis of project purpose cost allocations?

Response: There have been several projects in the region that have had final cost allocation changes to previous interim allocations. For example, the San Juan-Chama Project March 2001 Final Cost Allocation incorporated numerous project purpose changes that occurred since earlier Definite Plan Reports (DPR), such as the increase in the M&I purpose and inclusion of the purpose of the Jicarilla Apache Settlement. Additionally, both the Dolores Project December 2000 and the Dallas Creek Project February 2004 Final Cost Allocations also incorporated some cost allocation changes as a result of slight purpose shifts since their last DPR interim allocations. Also, the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project, still in construction phase, has had recent cost allocation changes to conform to its reconfiguration pursuant to the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Pub. L. No. 102-575). It is possible that the current October 2004 Interim Cost Allocation of the Bonneville Unit may change again until there is a final cost allocation. Once a final cost allocation has been approved, any cost allocation change succeeding that document may need Congressional approval under Section 302 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152).

Comment: A commenter stated and asked the following: “The April 18, 2008 response to our February 11, 2008, letter includes discussion regarding a footnote contained in Tab 19 of the Supporting Documentation material. It refers to irrigation investment costs. What does footnote 1 (Legal waiver of assistance of irrigation investigation costs still not available) mean? Are these costs related to the ALP study costs? The Congress directed on December 15, 2000, that ‘Federal law does not provide a basis for allocating costs related to ALP irrigation components to the M&I water uses or to CRSP power customers. Allocating such costs would require an explicit change to Federal law. As the July 2000 EIS recognizes, in the absence of such a change in the law, those ‘sunk costs’ that are attributed to project features that are not part of the Department's Preferred Alternative are non-reimbursable.’ (S. Report, 106th Congress, 106-513) [sic].”

Response: Public Law 106-554, dated December 21, 2000, states, “Such repayment shall be consistent with Federal Reclamation Law, including the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (43 U.S.C. 620 et seq. ). Such agreement shall take into account the fact that the construction of certain project facilities, including those facilities required to provide irrigation water supplies from the Animas La Plata Project, is not authorized under paragraph (1)(A)(i) and no cost associated with the design or development of such facilities, including costs associated with environmental compliance, shall be allocable to the municipal and industrial users of the facilities authorized under such paragraph.”

Reclamation believes it is clear from Public Law 106-554 that, although Reclamation is no longer authorized to construct irrigation facilities for the ALP, the costs of the design and development of these facilities are not specifically declared non-reimbursable. Public Law 106-554 provides only that those irrigation investigation costs cannot be allocated to the M&I users; otherwise, repayment shall be consistent with Federal Reclamation law, including the CRSP Act.

Comment: An interested party asked, “What is the basis for the cost of living adjustment included for Reclamation? Is this authorized across all Federal positions, across all Department of Interior positions, throughout Reclamation?”

Response: The program analysts for the Office of Personnel Management determine the cost of living adjustments for most Federal employees. You may wish to visit its Web site at http://www.opm.gov. Typically for budget purposes, Western and Reclamation assume a 3 percent increase based on historical averages.

Comment: One commenter asked what causes the large increase in Project Use in FY 2021.

Response: Increased requirements of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project.

Comment: One commenter asked where Project Use revenues appear on Table 3 of the Supporting Documentation Booklet.

Response: The Project Use sales are included along with the Energy and Capacity sales on Table 3 of the Supporting Documentation Booklet and, therefore, are included in determining the energy and capacity rates.

Comment: A commenter asked if Reclamation and Western are seeking appropriations for the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program as obligated in Pub. L. 102-395.

Response: The Recovery Implementation Program Act, Public Law 106-392, Section 3(d)(3)(2), provides that: “If [Western] and [Reclamation] determine that the funds in the [Basin Fund] will not be sufficient to meet the obligations of section 5(c)(1) of the [CRSP] Act for a 3-year period, [Western] and [Reclamation] shall request appropriations to meet base funding obligations.” Since the Basin Fund currently has an adequate balance for anticipated non-reimbursable funding requirements, no appropriations are currently being sought for the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program.

Comment: A customer stated that the Recovery Implementation Program (RIP) Base Funding should be at zero after FY 2013 until specific legislation extending the obligation has been passed.

Response: Similar to the way Reclamation has treated security costs in previous WPRs, it shows potential RIP costs in an effort to show any costs that may affect the Basin Fund. Since RIP Base Funding is a non-reimbursable expense, it does not impact the firm power rate.

Comment: A commenter asked if the Aspinall EIS is expected to be done this FY 2008, and if so, shouldn't FY 2009 and FY 2010 expenses be zero?

Response: The current schedule for the Aspinall EIS shows an optimistic anticipated completion date of December 2008 (FY 2009). However, due to various factors and uncertainties in the process, Reclamation recommends leaving the funding in the budget until the EIS has been finalized.

Comment: Two comments were received questioning the determination not to require an Environmental Assessment (EA) or EIS for this rate adjustment.

Response: Western believes it is categorically excluded from an EA or EIS because this process is for a rate adjustment. There are no proposed changes in operations.

Comment: One commenter suggests that the contracts for hydropower anticipate changes in flows from Glen Canyon Dam needed to meet the Grand Canyon Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act so that acquisition of replacement power during these flows is minimized or eliminated.

Response: This rate adjustment does not alter Western's contractual obligations. Western relies upon the hydropower generation estimates projected by the generating agency when planning for replacement power requirements. Western's firm power contracts with its customers provide for the delivery of SHP which is the minimum quantity of firm energy that must be supplied under the contracts. Western's firm power contracts do not expire until September 30, 2024.

Comment: A commenter asked what the actual operational expenses have been over the past 5 years for purchased power expenses for operational purposes, and what hydrology was used post-2014.

Response: Western does not specifically track operational purchased power expenses; however, Western has increased this projection for several reasons: (a) Increased energy prices especially during real time on-peak conditions, (b) increased requests for special power plant operations, (c) increased special operations for fish studies, (d) increased unscheduled flow reduction activities, and (e) spinning units for voltage support.

The hydrology study titled, “Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operation for Lake Powell and Lake Mead” was used for determining the purchased power estimates for the years FY 2010 through FY 2013. Western used the median level of releases from the dams in these estimates after FY 2014.

Comment: A commenter asked what month's 24-month study is utilized in Table 3 of the Rate Brochure and when an updated study will be available with revised hydrology.

Response: The April 2008, 24-month study will be used for the ratesetting Power Repayment Study (PRS) to project purchased power estimates for FY 2008 and FY 2009. In previous rate analyses, Western has used Reclamation's long-term hydrological study through FY 2060. In this process, for long-term projections, we used the same method as in the last rate process where Western looked at the first 5 future years then dropped purchased power projections down to the operation cost. This effectively makes the difference between Reclamation's long-term study and the most current 24-month study negligible.

Comment: Several commenters asked if the turbine efficiency improvements at Glen Canyon had been factored into the energy calculations in this PRS. They suggested deferring the rate process until the impacts of the enhanced unit efficiencies are evaluated and included in the PRS.

Response: Improvements in turbine efficiency have not been factored into the energy calculation for use in the ratesetting PRS. Western is currently working with Reclamation to determine the energy output of the turbine efficiency improvements at Glen Canyon, Flaming Gorge, and Upper and Lower Molina dams. If the turbine efficiency improvement studies are completed in time for input into the second step of the firm power rate, Western will factor them into the rate.

Comment: A commenter cited independent studies that concluded climate changes could cause Lake Powell to go empty or at least below hydropower generation by 2021. The commenter suggests Western incorporate these studies into its hydrogeneration forecasting.

Response: Western uses forecasts based on hydrological projections that are received from Reclamation. These hydrological studies look at the possible consequences of long term changes to climate. Appendix W, Climate Technical Work Group Report, of the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead's final EIS is a recent example. Moreover, Western's PRSs are performed on a yearly basis with updated hydrological projections.

Any long-term shifts in hydrology that would reduce hydropower generation will be incorporated into future data provided by Reclamation and will be reflected in Western's PRSs at that time. Additionally, depletions to the runoff caused by future development of Upper Basin water allocations are included in Reclamation's hydrological projections and are thus incorporated into Western's rate determination process.

Comment: A commenter suggested the rate process should be deferred until the uncertainties of the improved hydrological conditions, including equalization flows are evaluated and included in the PRS. The commenter questioned if there is a mechanism in place that will compensate for drastically improved hydrology.

Response: If hydrology improves drastically there will be less purchased power costs built into the second step rate, FY 2009 and beyond. In addition, Western will use the updated generation forecasts when it determines the second step.

Comment: A commenter wanted to know if a customer has to be physically connected to Western's system in order to receive ancillary services such as reactive supply, etc.

Response: There is no predetermined requirement for a customer to receive ancillary services on Western's transmission system. The criteria needed to determine whether or not a customer can receive ancillary services on Western's transmission system include: (a) Physical interconnection, (b) balancing authority location, (c) type of customer, and (d) type of ancillary service required. Each request for ancillary services needs to be evaluated based on its own circumstances. Depending upon the responses to the items listed above, the providing of ancillary services may be mandatory or optional.

Comment: A commenter asked if there were on/off-peak and seasonal non-firm rates on transmission.

Response: CRSP MC does offer firm transmission on a short-term basis, which is usually at a non-firm rate but can be discounted through the OASIS posting process.

Comment: A customer wanted to know if Contract No. 98-SLC-0390 between Western and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) had been extended, since it terminates December 2008.

Response: As of this publication date, this contract with UAMPS has not been extended.

Comment: A commenter wanted to know what the anticipated impacts on merchant function revenues were given the proposed merchant function consolidation.

Response: Western performed a high-level evaluation of the merchant functions and decided it will not be pursuing merchant consolidation as part of this strategic planning process.

Comments: A commenter wanted to know what will be Western's treatment regarding post-2010 SHP allocations.

Response: Western is assuming that SHP allocations will remain constant through FY 2013 and includes firming purchases accordingly to meet its commitments. After FY 2013, Western continues to assume the same SHP allocations through the remainder of the PRS, but reduces the purchased power estimates to include only those needed for operations ($4 million per year).

Comment: A commenter states it is unfortunate that Glen Canyon Dam was authorized.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rate process.

Comment: A comment was received stating that since the outcome of the integration of the CRSP cost allocations between RMR and DSW for the operational consolidation is unknown, any rate process should be deferred until October 1, 2009.

Response: Western has chosen to proceed with Operations Consolidation (“Option C” of the April 24 presentation). Western will work with all customers to ensure that each project will be allocated its appropriate share of costs. Western expects to provide its proposed cost allocation methodologies to interested customers by September 1, 2008, for their review and input.

Information about this rate adjustment, including PRSs, comments, letters, memorandums, and other supporting material made or kept by Western and used to develop the provisional rates, is available for public review at the Colorado River Storage Project Management Center, Western Area Power Administration, 150 East Social Hall Avenue, Suite 300, Salt Lake City, Utah or at http://www.wapa.gov/crsp/ratescrsp .

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined that this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.

The interim rates herein confirmed, approved, and placed into effect, together with supporting documents, will be submitted to the Commission for confirmation and final approval.

In view of the foregoing and under the authority delegated to me, I confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective October 1, 2008, Rate Schedule SLIP-F9, SP-PTP7, SP-NW3, SP-NFT6, SP-SD3, SP-RS3, SP-EI3, SP-FR3, and SP-SSR3 for the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects of the Western Area Power Administration. These rate schedules shall remain in effect on an interim basis, pending FERC's confirmation and approval of them or substitute rates on a final basis through September 30, 2013.

Effective: The first step of the stepped rate will be effective on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after October 1, 2008; the second step will be effective on the first day of the first full billing period on or after October 1, 2009, extending through September 30, 2013, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

Available: In the area served by the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects.

Applicable: To the wholesale power customer for firm power service supplied through one meter at one point of delivery, or as otherwise established by contract.

Character: Alternating current, 60 hertz, three-phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points established by contract.

Monthly Rate: First step, effective October 1, 2008:

DEMAND CHARGE: $4.70/kilowatt of billing demand.

ENERGY CHARGE: 11.06 mills/kilowatthour of use.

Second step, effective October 1, 2009, and not to exceed the following:

DEMAND CHARGE: $5.22/kilowatt of billing demand.

ENERGY CHARGE: 12.29 mills/kilowatthour of use.

COST RECOVERY CHARGE: This charge will be recalculated annually before May 1, and Western will provide notification to the customers. The charge, if needed, will be placed into effect from October 1 through September 30. If triggered by the Shortage Criteria, the CRC will be re-calculated at that time and may be implemented at any time of the year upon 45-day notice to customers. (See Shortage Criteria Trigger explanation below.) The CRC will be calculated as follows:

Step One: Determine the net balance available in the Basin Fund.

BFBB—Western will forecast the Basin Fund Beginning Balance for the next FY.

BFTB—Determine the Basin Fund Target Balance for the next FY. The BFTB will not be less than $20 million. The target is 15 percent of projected annual expenses for the coming FY. BFTB = 0.15*PAE.

PAR—Projected Annual Revenue is Western's estimate of revenue for the next FY.

PAE—Projected Annual Expenses is Western's estimate of expenses for the next FY. The PAE includes all expenses plus non-reimbursable expenses, which are capped at $27 million per year plus an inflation factor. This limitation is for CRC formula calculation purposes only, and is not a cap on actual non-reimbursable expenses.

NR—Net Revenue equals revenues minus expenses. NR = PAR−PAW.

NB—Net Balance is the Basin Fund Beginning Balance plus net revenue. NB = BFBB+NR.

Step Two: Determine the forecasted energy purchased expenses.

EA—The Sustainable Hydropower Energy Allocation. This does not include Project Use customers.

HE—Western's forecast of Hydro Energy available during the next FY developed from Reclamation's April, 24-month, study.

FE—Forecasted Energy purchases are the difference between the sustainable hydropower allocation and the forecasted hydro energy available for the next FY, or the anticipated firming purchases for the next year. FE = EA−HE.

FFC—The forecasted energy price for the next FY per MWh.

FX—Forecasted energy purchased power expenses based on the current year April 24-month study, representing an estimate of the total costs of firming purchases for the coming FY. FX = FE*FFC.

Step Three: Determine the amount of Funds Available (FA) to expend on firming energy purchases, and then determine additional revenue to be recovered (FARR). The following two formulas will be used to determine FA; the lesser of the two will be used. Funds available shall not be less than zero.

A. Basin Fund Balance Factor (FA1)

The first factor ensures that the Net Balance will not go below 15 percent of the total expenses for that FY. If the Net Balance is greater than the Basin Fund Target Balance, then use the value for forecasted energy purchased power expenses. If the net balance is less than the Basin Fund Target Balance, then reduce the value of the Forecasted Energy Purchased Power Expenses by the difference between the Basin Fund Target Balance and the Net Balance.

If the Net Balance is greater than the Basin Fund Target Balance, then FA1 = FX.

If the Net Balance is less than the Basin Fund Target Balance, then FA1 = FX−(BFTB−NB).

B. Basin Fund Revenue Factor (FA2)

The second factor ensures that the net revenue does not result in a loss that exceeds 25 percent of the Basin Fund Beginning Balance. If the Net Revenue is greater than a minus 25 percent of the Basin Fund Beginning Balance, then use the value for forecasted energy purchased power expenses. If the Net Revenue is less than a minus 25 percent of the Basin Fund Beginning Balance, then add the Net Revenue; and 25 percent of the Basin Fund Beginning Balance to the forecasted energy purchased power expenses.

If the Net Revenue does not result in a loss that exceeds 25 percent of the Basin Fund Beginning Balance, then FA2 = FX.

If the Net Revenue results in a loss that exceeds 25 percent of the Basin Fund Beginning Balance, then FA2 + FX + NR + 0.25*BFBB.

FA—Determine the funds available for purchasing firming energy by using the lesser of FA1 and FA2.

FARR—Calculate the additional revenue to be recovered by subtracting the Funds Available from the forecasted energy purchased power expenses. FARR = FX−FA.

Step Four: Once the funds available for purchases have been determined, the CRC can be calculated and the Waiver Level (WL) can be determined.

A. Cost Recovery Charge: The CRC will be a charge to recover the additional revenue required as calculated in Step 3. The CRC will apply to all customers who choose not to request a waiver of the CRC, as discussed below. The CRC equals the additional revenue to be recovered divided by the total energy allocation to all customers for the FY.

B. Waiver Level:

Western established an energy WL that provides customers the ability to reduce their purchased power expenses by scheduling less energy than their contractual amounts. Therefore, Western will establish an energy WL. For those customers who voluntarily schedule no more energy than their proportionate share of the WL, Western will waive the CRC for that year.

After the Funds Available have been determined, the WL will be set at the sum of the energy that can be provided through hydro generation and purchased with Funds Available. The WL will not be less than the forecasted Hydro Energy.

If SHP Energy Allocation is less than forecasted Hydro Energy available, then WL = EA.

If SHP Energy Allocation is greater than forecasted Hydro Energy available, then WL = HE + (FE*(FA/FX)).

Prior Year Adjustment: The CRC PYA for subsequent years will be determined by comparing the prior year's estimated firming-energy cost to the prior year's actual firming-energy cost for the energy provided above the WL. The PYA will result in an increase or decrease to a customer's firm energy costs over the course of the following year. The following table is the calculation of a PYA.

Step One: Determine actual expenses and purchases for previous year's firming. This data will be obtained from Western's financial statements at the end of the FY.

PFX—Prior year actual firming expense.

PFE—Prior year actual firming energy.

Step Two: Determine the actual firming cost for the CRC portion.

EAC—Sum of the energy allocations of customers subject to the PYA.

CRCE—The amount of CRC Energy needed.

AFC—The Actual Firming Energy Cost is the PFX divided by the PFE.

Step Three: Determine Revenue Adjustment (RA) and Prior Year Adjustment (PYA).

RA—The Revenue Adjustment is AFC less FFC times CRCE.

PYA—The PYA is the RA divided by the EAC for the CRC customers only.

The customer's PYA will be based on their prior year's energy multiplied by the resulting mills/kWh to determine the dollar amount that will be assessed. The customers will be charged or credited for this dollar amount equally in the remaining months of the next year's billing cycle. Western will attempt to complete this calculation by December of every year. Therefore, if the PYA is calculated in December, the charge/credit will be spread over the remaining 9 months of the FY (January through September).

Shortage Criteria Trigger: In the event that Reclamation's 24-month study projects that Glen Canyon Dam water releases will drop below 8.23 MAF in a water year (October through September), Western will recalculate the CRC to include those lower estimates of hydropower generation and the estimated costs for the additional purchased power necessary to meet contractual requirements. Western, as in the yearly projection for the CRC, will give the customers a 45-day notice to request a waiver of the CRC, if they do not want to have the CRC charge added to their energy bill. This recalculated CRC will remain in effect for the remainder of the current FY.

In the event that Glen Canyon Dam water releases return to 8.23 MAF or higher level during the trigger implementation, the CRC will be recalculated and the customer will be notified.

Billing Demand: The billing demand will be the greater of:

1. The highest 30-minute integrated demand measured during the month up to, but not more than, the delivery obligation under the power sales contract, or

2. The Contract Rate of Delivery.

Billing Energy: The billing energy will be the energy measured during the month up to, but not more than, the delivery obligation under the power sales contract.

Adjustment for Waiver: Customers may choose to take a reduced SHP energy allocation as determined in the attached formulas for the CRC, and they will be billed the Energy and Capacity rates listed above, but not the CRC.

Adjustment for Transformer Losses: If delivery is made at transmission voltage but metered on the low-voltage side of the substation, the meter readings will be increased to compensate for transformer losses as provided in the contract.

Adjustment for Power Factor: The customer will be required to maintain a power factor at all points of measurement between 95 percent lagging and 95 percent leading.

Adjustment for Western Replacement Power: Pursuant to the Contractor's Firm Electric Service Contract, as amended, Western will bill the Contractor for its proportionate share of the costs of Western Replacement Power (WRP) within a given time period. Western will include in the Contractor's monthly power bill the cost of the WRP and the incremental administrative costs associated with WRP.

Adjustment for Customer Displacement Power Administrative Charges: Western will include in the Contractor's regular monthly power bill the incremental administrative costs associated with Customer Displacement Power.

Effective: The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after October 1, 2008, and extending through September 30, 2013, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

Available: In the area served by the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) transmission system.

Applicable: To firm point-to-point transmission service customers for which power and energy are supplied to the CRSP transmission system at points of interconnection with other systems and transmitted and delivered, less losses, to points of delivery on the CRSP transmission system established by contract.

Character and Conditions of Service: Transmission service for alternating current, 60 hertz, three-phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points of delivery established by contract.

Point-to-Point Rate Formula: The firm point-to-point rate is based on a test year using an annual fixed charge methodology. The test year is the most recent historical data available. The annual revenue requirement is reduced by revenue credits. The resultant net annual cost to be recovered is divided by the capacity reservation needed to meet firm power and transmission commitments in kW, including the total network integration loads at system peak, to derive a cost/kWyear. The cost/kWyear is calculated using the following formula:

This formula will be recalculated annually by applying the data from the most current historical test year. If needed, a revised rate will be placed into effect every October 1. Western will provide notification 30 days prior to a revised rate becoming effective. The rate for transmission service includes scheduling, system control, and dispatch. Rate Schedule SP-RS3, or any superseding rate schedule, for reactive supply and voltage control is attached as part of this Rate Schedule and applies to firm point-to-point transmission customers.

Billing: The point-to-point transmission customer will be billed monthly by applying the resulting rate to the maximum amount of capacity reserved, payable whether used or not, except as otherwise provided in existing contracts.

Requirements for Reactive Power: Requirements for reactive power shall be as established by contract; otherwise, there shall be no entitlement to transfer of reactive kilovolt amperes at delivery points except when such transfers may be mutually agreed upon by the Contractor and the contracting officer or their authorized representatives.

Adjustment for Losses: Power and energy losses incurred in connection with the transmission and delivery of power and energy under this rate schedule shall be supplied by the customer as established by contract. If losses are not fully provided by a transmission customer, charges for financial compensation may apply.

Adjustment for Industry Restructuring: Any transmission-related costs incurred by Western due to electric industry restructuring or other industry changes associated with providing CRSP transmission service will be passed through to each transmission customer, as appropriate.

Effective: The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after October 1, 2008, and extending through September 30, 2013, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

Available: In the area served by the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) transmission system.

Applicable: To network transmission service customers for which power and energy are supplied to the CRSP transmission system at points of interconnection with other systems and transmitted and delivered, less losses, to points of delivery on the CRSP transmission system established by contract.

Character and Conditions of Service: Transmission service for alternating current, 60 hertz, three-phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points of delivery established by contract.

Monthly Network Formula: The Network integration transmission service charge will be the product of the network customer's load ratio share times one twelfth ( 1/12 ) of the total net annual transmission revenue requirement. The same Net Annual Transmission Revenue Requirement is used in determining the rate for network transmission service as for point-to-point transmission service. It is based on a test year using an annual fixed charge methodology. The test year is the most recent year for which historical data is available. The annual revenue requirement is reduced by revenue credits. The formula is as follows:

This formula will be recalculated annually by applying the data from the most current historical test year. If needed, a revised rate will be placed into effect every October 1. Western will provide notification 30 days prior to a revised rate becoming effective.

The monthly charge for network transmission service includes scheduling, system control, and dispatch. Rate Schedule SP-RS3, or any superseding rate schedule, will be attached as part of this Rate Schedule and applies to network transmission customers.

Billing: Billing determinants for the formula rate above will be as specified in the service agreement.

Requirements for Reactive Power: Requirements for reactive power shall be as established by contract; otherwise, there shall be no entitlement to transfer of reactive kilovolt amperes at delivery points except when such transfers may be mutually agreed upon by the Contractor and the contracting officer or their authorized representatives.

Adjustment for Losses: Power and energy losses incurred in connection with the transmission and delivery of power and energy under this rate schedule shall be supplied by the customer as established by contract. If losses are not fully provided by a transmission customer, charges for financial compensation may apply.

Adjustment for Industry Restructuring: Any transmission-related costs incurred by Western due to electric industry restructuring or other industry changes associated with providing CRSP transmission service will be passed through to each transmission customer, as appropriate.

Effective: The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after October 1, 2008, and extending through September 30, 2013, or until superseded by another rate schedule, whichever occurs earlier.

Available: In the area served by the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) transmission system.

Applicable: To non-firm point-to-point transmission service customers for which power and energy are supplied to the CRSP transmission system at points of interconnection with other systems and transmitted and delivered, less losses, to points of delivery on the CRSP transmission system as established by contract.

Character and Conditions of Service: Transmission service on an interruptible basis for three-phase alternating current 60 hertz, delivered and metered at the voltages and points of delivery specified in the service contract or in advance by the Western Area Power Administration (Western). Conditions for curtailment shall be determined by Western and in accordance with Western's Tariff.

Rate: The proposed rate for non-firm, point-to-point, CRSP transmission service is based upon the firm point-to-point rate expressed in mills/kWh. This rate may be discounted.

Billing: The rate will be applied to each kWh delivered at the point of delivery, as specified in the service contract.

Adjustments for Reactive Power: None. There shall be no entitlement to transfer of reactive kilovolt-amperes at delivery points, except when such transfers may be mutually agreed upon by the Contractor and the contracting officer or their authorized representatives.

Adjustments for Losses: Power and energy losses incurred in connection with the transmission and delivery of power and energy under this rate schedule shall be supplied by the customer in accordance with the service contract. If losses are not fully provided by a transmission customer, charges for financial compensation may apply.

Adjustment for Industry Restructuring: Any transmission-related costs incurred by Western due to electric industry restructuring or other industry changes associated with providing CRSP transmission service will be passed through to each transmission customer, as appropriate.

EPA ICR Number 1669.05; Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Information Dissemination—TSCA Section 406(b); in 40 CFR part 735, subpart E; was approved 08/14/2008; OMB Number 2070-0158; expires 08/31/2011.

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from August 4, 2008 through August 15, 2008, consists of the PMNs and TME, both pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

This status report identifies the PMNs and TME, both pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the TME received:

In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:

Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to identify certain pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to issue air quality criteria for them. These air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air. * * *” Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act requires subsequent periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. EPA is also to revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised air quality criteria.

Sulfur oxides are one of six principal (or “criteria”) pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS. Periodically, EPA reviews the scientific basis for these standards by preparing an Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), formerly called an Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD). The ISA and supplementary annexes, in conjunction with additional technical and policy assessments, provide the scientific basis for EPA decisions on the adequacy of a current NAAQS and the appropriateness of new or revised standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an independent science advisory committee mandated by the Clean Air Act and part of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), is charged with expert scientific review of EPA's draft ISAs.

On May 16, 2006 (71 FR 28023), EPA formally initiated its current review of the criteria for Sulfur Oxides, requesting the submission of recent scientific information on specified topics. A draft of EPA's “Integrated Plan for Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Oxides” was made available in February 2007 for public comment and was discussed by the CASAC via a publicly accessible teleconference consultation on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 20336). This plan was then finalized and made available to the public in October 2007. A review of the secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for Sulfur Oxides is being conducted separately, in conjunction with the review of the secondary NAAQS for Oxides of Nitrogen. ( http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/s_so2_cr_pd.html ). In February 2007 (72 FR 6238), a workshop was held to discuss, with invited scientific experts, initial draft materials prepared in the development of the ISA and supplementary annexes for sulfur oxides. The first external review draft of this ISA was released for public comment and review by the CASAC on September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55207), and was reviewed by CASAC at a public meeting held on December 5-6, 2007 (72 FR 64216). The second draft of this ISA was released for public comment and review by the CASAC in June 2008 (73 FR 31113), and was reviewed by CASAC at a public meeting held on July 30-31, 2008. EPA has considered comments by CASAC and by the public in preparing this final ISA.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0673 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Written comments . The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES , no later than November 18, 2008, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after November 18, 2008 should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring 30 copies for distribution to the FIFRA SAP.

2. Oral comments . The Agency encourages that each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than November 25, 2008, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of the FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP at the meeting.

3. Seating at the meeting . Seating at the meeting will be open and on a first-come basis.

4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting . As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, the FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: occupational pesticide exposure and risk assessment, agronomy and agricultural production practices, statistics, and labor statistics. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before September 22, 2008. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency.

The selection of scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP is based on the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on the FIFRA SAP. Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting approximately 10 to 12 ad hoc scientists.

FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on the FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website at http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov .

The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA, established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists who are available to the Scientific Advisory Panel on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the Scientific Advisory Panel. As a peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.

Extensive investigation of hand labor activities in agriculture and subsequent occupational, post-application exposure monitoring were conducted as a result of an EPA data call-in (DCI) in 1995. An industry task force, the Agricultural Reentry Task Force (ARTF), was formed to produce the data to satisfy the data requirements. In conjunction with the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), the Task Force proposed and conducted exposure monitoring studies for field workers engaged in hand labor activities in a variety of crops across agriculture.

The data from the completed studies now comprise a generic database for use in conducting occupational post-application exposure assessment in all agricultural settings. Based on the types of crops and activities monitored, the database is organized into crop-activity groups, or clusters, designed to represent, and enable exposure assessment of all hand labor activities that occur in agriculture.

During this meeting of the FIFRA SAP, the Agency will provide an overview of occupational post-application monitoring studies conducted by the ARTF as well as the proposed organization, content, structure, and characteristics of the database. The overview will contain discussions of the criteria used to define the appropriate activities to monitor, how crops and crop activities were grouped into clusters, how the completed data are interpreted and used, and the general methodology and assumptions underlying post-application exposure assessments. Finally, the regulatory agencies will discuss the peer review process that was followed in developing and making decisions on the use of this database.

The goal of this meeting is for the Agency to seek comments from the FIFRA SAP on the adequacy of the data collected, the appropriateness of the clustering decisions, the utility of the database for occupational post-application exposure assessment in agricultural settings, and some of the critical assumptions used in estimating exposures.

EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/questions to the FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by late November 2008. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap .

The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov .

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

3. Environmental justice . EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be periodically reviewed. The goal is a review of a pesticide's registration every 15 years. Under FIFRA section 3(a), a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is periodically reviewing pesticide registrations to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration — that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. The implementing regulations establishing the procedures for registration review appear at 40 CFR part 155. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table.

1. Review dockets . The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information:

• An overview of the registration review case status.

• A list of current product registrations and registrants.

• Federal Register notices regarding any pending registration actions.

• Federal Register notices regarding current or pending tolerances.

• Risk assessments.

• Bibliographies concerning current registrations.

• Summaries of incident data.

• Any other pertinent data or information.

Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome.

2. Other related information . More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency's website at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/schedule.htm . Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review .