[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 86 (Monday, May 5, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23709-23714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11009]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Western Area Power Administration


Parker-Davis Project--Extension of Electric Power Resource 
Commitments by Application of the Energy Planning and Management 
Program Power Marketing Initiative

AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: Western Area Power Administration (Western) will apply the 
Energy Planning and Management Program (EPAMP) Power Marketing 
Initiative (PMI) to the Parker-Davis Project (P-DP), as proposed in a 
Federal Register Notice (FRN) published on August 8, 2002. Western will 
market additional capacity that will be available October 1, 2008, 
creating a larger resource pool and making additional capacity and 
energy available to new contractors. The additional capacity will also 
allow Western to extend a larger percentage of existing contractors' 
current Firm Electric Service (FES) allocations.

DATES: Western's decision to apply the PMI to the P-DP will become 
effective on June 4, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Roy Tinsley, Project Manager, 
Western Area Power Administration, PO Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ, 85005-
6457, telephone (602) 352-2525, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Authorities: Western markets P-DP power resources under the 
Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101-7352); and 
the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and 
supplemented by later acts, particularly section 9(c) of the 
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other acts 
that apply specifically to P-DP.
    Background: Western published its proposal to apply the EPAMP PMI 
to the P-DP on August 8, 2002 (67 FR 51580). We proposed to extend 94 
percent of the current P-DP FES allocations for 20 years. The remaining 
6 percent of resources would form a resource pool for allocation to new 
contractors.
    In the August 8, 2002, notice, Western requested comments on the 
proposal and gave interested parties until November 6, 2002, to submit 
written comments. Public information and comment forums were held in 
Las Vegas, Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona; and Ontario, California. Western 
received comments from firm power contractors, Native American tribes, 
and other potential contractors. Comments may be viewed on Western's 
Web site at http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt. Western also addresses 
specific comments later in this notice.
    Decision: Based on comments received and a review of available 
resources, Western will: (1) Apply the PMI to the Parker-Davis Project 
remarketing effort; (2) Increase the summer and winter marketable 
capacity to 258.985 megawatts (MW) and 198.240 MW respectively; (3) 
Increase the capacity available to existing P-DP contractors as of 
October 1, 2008; (4) Round up allocations of less than 1 MW to an even 
1 MW in summer and winter, and allocations of less than 2 MW to an even 
2 MW in summer only; (5) Extend for 20 years 93 percent of existing 
contractors' adjusted allocations; and, (6) Use the remaining 7 percent 
of adjusted allocations for the resource pool.
    Western computed existing contractors' extension allocation amounts 
using the formula contained in the EPAMP PMI (10 CFR part 905.33):

    Customer Contract Rate of Delivery (CROD) today/total project 
CROD under contract today x project-specific percentage x marketable 
resource determined to be available at the time future resource 
extensions begin = CROD extended.

    After adjusting each contractors' CROD by applying the increase in 
marketable capacity and then reducing the adjusted allocations by 7 
percent, the net effect to each contractor's current allocation is a 
reduction of less than 1 percent. (See Table 1 for a list of each 
contractor's extended allocation.) The 7 percent reduction to the 
adjusted allocations will create a resource pool with 16.779 MW of 
summer capacity and 12.903 MW of winter capacity. Western rounded these 
capacities to 17 MW in summer and 13 MW in winter. The new resource 
pool includes 0.869 MW of summer withdrawable capacity and 0.619 MW of 
winter withdrawable capacity. The associated energy will equal 3,441 
kWh/kW in summer and 1,703 kWh/kW in winter, based on the current 
marketing plan criteria. Western will request applications for resource 
pool allocations under a separate process.

[[Page 23710]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05MY03.000

Comments and Discussion

    This section summarizes and discusses the comments received during 
the public process on the applicability of the PMI to P-DP. All written 
comments and transcripts from the public comment forums are available 
on Western's Web site at http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt.

Application of the Power Marketing Initiative

    Background: Consistent with other recent Western marketing efforts, 
Western proposes to apply the PMI to the P-DP.
    Comments and discussion: Most commenters supported applying the PMI 
to P-DP, citing the strong precedent in other regions and noting that 
``it has worked well for Western, for the Federal government, and for 
customers.'' Western believes the P-DP has no unique characteristics to 
exempt it from the PMI, which we have applied in

[[Page 23711]]

every remarketing effort since its adoption in 1995. One commenter said 
that it is not a question of whether, but how, the PMI applies to P-DP, 
adding that ``not to treat Parker-Davis under these rules would be 
arbitrary and capricious and abusive discretion.''
    Several commenters opposed applying the PMI, instead favoring a 
complete reallocation of P-DP resources. Some supported extending small 
contractors' allocations at current levels while reallocating the 
remaining amount. However, extending some contracts and conducting a 
complete reallocation are mutually exclusive actions. Under a complete 
reallocation, no existing contractor would be guaranteed an allocation. 
The process would also slow the P-DP remarketing effort significantly, 
creating uncertainty for both existing and potential contractors. This 
would hamper contractors' ability to make long-term plans, which 
conflicts with several comments asking Western for a quick decision. 
Western does not believe that a total reallocation is necessary or 
desirable.
    Some commenters stated that P-DP has been the ``private preserve of 
some entities for over 40 years.'' Western believes application of the 
PMI balances the needs of the existing contractors with those of 
prospective contractors. While current contractors will continue to 
receive P-DP power under the PMI, the 17-MW summer resource pool, which 
is a 17-percent increase over the proposed 14.55-MW resource pool, will 
allow Western to provide the benefits of Federal hydropower beyond 
existing contractors. As this solution balances the needs of new and 
existing contractors and encourages widespread use of the resource, 
Western will apply the PMI to the P-DP remarketing effort.

Contract Term

    Background: The PMI provides for extending a major portion of the 
marketable resource determined to be available at the time resource 
extensions begin in the future.
    Comments and discussion: Western received a substantial number of 
comments which supported the PMI contract term adopted in the EPAMP 
final rule (10 CFR 905.31). No objecting comments were received.

Pool Size

    Background: Western proposed to extend 94 percent of P-DP 
contractors' allocations to FES from P-DP. The remaining 6 percent of 
current allocations would form a resource pool of 14.55 MW of summer 
capacity and 11.13 MW of winter capacity.
    Comments and discussion: Many comments supported a 6-percent 
reduction of each contractor's allocation to create a resource pool. 
Others asked Western to consider a smaller percentage, stating that the 
proposed reduction would disproportionately affect small customers, 
while some asked us to find additional resources to increase the pool 
size. Western reviewed the P-DP resources and identified additional 
capacity to market as FES. The additional capacity results in part from 
the recent generator rewinds at Davis Powerplant.
    Therefore, existing contractors' FES allocations will be increased 
to reflect the additional capacity, and Western will then extend 93 
percent of these allocations, beginning October 1, 2008. The remaining 
7 percent will form the resource pool of 17 MW of P-DP power in summer 
and 13 MW in winter. Applying the increase in marketable capacity with 
a 7-percent reduction has the net effect of reducing contractors' 
unadjusted current CRODs by less than 1 percent. This action provides a 
larger pool for new customers while taking less from current 
contractors' allocations, benefiting both groups.
    One commenter suggested that Western purchase power to increase the 
pool size. The core of this comment is a request to expand the resource 
pool, which Western did by marketing additional P-DP capacity. However, 
the comments accompanying the EPAMP regulations (60 FR 54151, 54162, 
October 20, 1995) state,

    Western will not purchase resources for new but not yet 
identified customers, as the appropriate level of Western's 
marketable resources should be determined through a project-specific 
analysis of hydrology, project use load, losses, and reserves.

The resource pool expansion is consistent with this statement. Purchase 
power is a component of the existing marketing plan, as required to 
meet firm electric service contractual commitments. Western will not 
supplement the pool by purchasing additional capacity.

    Another commenter said that Western had no analytical support for 
the pool size. The PMI states that Western must make a fair share of 
the resource available. In the comments accompanying the EPAMP 
regulations (60 FR 54151, 54162, October 20, 1995), Western stated,

* * * it is difficult to define precisely the demands of new 
customers prior to creation of the resource pool. That can only be 
done after a call for applications is published in the Federal 
Register, and applications are actually received. Western cannot 
precisely define the needs of new customers at this time.

    However, the increased capacity has created a larger resource pool 
for potential new contractors, allowing Western to allocate P-DP power 
to more customers.

Existing Marketing Plan Minimum Allocation

    Background: Two P-DP contractors receive allocations of less than 1 
MW. However, the current marketing plan criteria contains a 1-MW 
minimum for new customer allocations (52 FR 28333, 28335, July 29, 
1987).
    Comments and discussion: A commenter asked Western to round up 
allocations of less than 1 MW, making it consistent with the marketing 
plan criteria. The 1-MW minimum recognizes that operationally Western 
does not schedule power to entities in quantities of less than 1 
megawatt. Western will round up allocations of less than 1 MW in both 
summer and winter, based on the 1-MW minimum allocation provision in 
the existing marketing plan.

Rounding Up To Mitigate Scheduling Risk

    Background: Utilities must schedule energy in full megawatt 
increments. As a result, Western contractors at times must round up 
their Western allocations when scheduling. Western is at risk of 
exceeding the P-DP CROD in any one hour because each contractor has the 
discretion to decide when to round up when scheduling its P-DP power. 
This risk is highest in summer, when demand is greatest. Western has 
exceeded the P-DP CROD in the past, which exposes Western to the 
potential of purchasing capacity. Rounding up customers with 
allocations of less than 2 MW in summer reduces Western's risk of 
exceeding the P-DP CROD in any one hour.
    Comments and discussion: We will round up contracts with 
allocations of less than 2 MW to an even 2 MW in summer. This action 
will reduce Western's risk of exceeding the P-DP CROD and exposure to 
purchasing capacity.

Exemption for Small Contractors

    Background: Western's August 8, 2002, Federal Register notice (67 
FR 51580-51581) did not propose to exempt small contractors from 
allocation reductions to form the P-DP resource pool.
    Comments and discussion: Several commenters expressed concern about 
the impact of a 6-percent allocation reduction on small contractors, 
saying it

[[Page 23712]]

would significantly affect power costs while adding very little to the 
resource pool. These commenters suggested exempting small customers 
from an allocation reduction.
    Western considered special provisions for small contractors during 
the PMI's development in the early 1990s. The initial PMI proposal (56 
FR 16093, April 19, 1991) called for exempting contractors with 
allocations under 1 MW. However, Western ultimately rejected the idea 
based on fairness and equity. Such an exemption is also inconsistent 
with other contract provisions, which do not exempt small contractors 
from resource withdrawals for project use power or due to changes in 
operations and hydrology. Small customers will, however, benefit from a 
much smaller reduction of their P-DP resources due to the increase in 
marketed project capacity. While allocations of less than 2 MW will be 
rounded up, Western is taking that action to mitigate its exposure to 
purchase capacity when the sum of contractors' bulk schedules exceeds 
the total project CROD, particularly during summer peak usage months.

Withdrawable and Nonwithdrawable Power

    Background: P-DP allocations consist of two types of firm power: 
withdrawable and nonwithdrawable. Power designated ``withdrawable'' may 
be taken from contractors should the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 
Department of the Interior, determine a need for additional project use 
power. The Consolidated Marketing Criteria (49 FR 50582, 50586, 
December 28, 1984) states,

    Power that is reserved for United States priority use, but not 
presently needed, is marketed to some of the Parker-Davis Project 
contractors as withdrawable power.

    Reclamation may request priority use withdrawals upon 2 years' 
notice. Western will then substantiate the request. Some contractors' 
allocations contain only nonwithdrawable power; others contain both 
withdrawable and nonwithdrawable. Determining the mix of resources in 
the pool will affect both new and existing P-DP contractors.
    Comments and discussion: Several commenters suggested creating the 
resource pool using only the nonwithdrawable part of the project's 
generation. Several others asked Western to only use withdrawable power 
whenever possible. Still others said Western should use withdrawable 
energy for the pool wherever possible and redesignate it as 
nonwithdrawable. Some commenters said no withdrawals have been made for 
at least 15 years, and that it is doubtful future withdrawals will be 
necessary. However, priority use power recipients said they will need 
both current and future project use withdrawals for the Yuma area. 
Another commenter contended that all P-DP power is withdrawable.
    The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for defining priority use 
requirements and for determining the amount of withdrawable power for 
the P-DP. When priority use power is requested, Western substantiates 
the requirements and makes the withdrawals. In its letter responding to 
Western's proposal to apply the PMI to P-DP (dated November 19, 2002), 
Reclamation stated,

    Reclamation today is unable to precisely identify the electric 
requirements of pumping that may be required Post 2008. There are 
prospective Reclamation plans which, consistent with the Gila 
Project Act and Yuma Project Act and the other Acts affecting the 
responsibility of Reclamation under the law, may require additional 
project pumping.

    When reducing existing allocations for the post-2008 marketing 
period, Western will first take energy from contractors' withdrawable 
allocations up to the total reduction, when available. The remaining 
reductions will come from nonwithdrawable energy. This approach will 
create a resource pool with 5.11 percent withdrawable energy in summer. 
Using this procedure to reduce existing allocations, withdrawable 
energy in summer will make up 6.26 percent of the total allocation to 
Western's existing contractors. Western believes that reducing existing 
contractors' withdrawable energy first will result in a more equitable 
distribution of withdrawable and nonwithdrawable energy among current 
and new contractors. Using this process, the amount of withdrawable 
energy in the resource pool will more closely reflect the percentage of 
withdrawable and nonwithdrawable power in existing allocations.

Undepreciated Replacement Advances

    Background: In the August 8, 2002, FRN (67 FR 51580), Western 
proposed that as provided in the current P-DP Advancement of Funds 
(AOF) contract, new customers will be required to reimburse existing 
customers for undepreciated replacement advances, to the extent 
existing customers' allocations are reduced as a result of creating the 
resource pool.
    Comments and discussion: Several commenters asked Western to 
apportion the required advanced funding payments for undepreciated 
replacement expenses over time to avoid a financial burden for new 
customers. Western's Advancement of Funds contract (98-DSR-10870) 
already includes this provision in section 15.7. The contract states 
that Western will collect AOF payments from new contractors 
incrementally until the surcharge obligation has been satisfied. The 
collection begins 120 days after the effective date of the contract 
that carries out the withdrawal or reallocation of power. Western then 
pays the contractors that advanced the funds in five annual payments, 
beginning on the first anniversary of the withdrawal or reallocation.

Advance Funding

    Background: In the August 8, 2002, FRN (67 FR 51580), Western 
proposed that customers who receive an allocation will also be required 
to participate in advance funding of Western's and the Bureau of 
Reclamation's operation and maintenance expenses.
    Comments and discussion: Western received no comments on this 
requirement, so advance funding will be included as a requirement in 
the contracts.

Imperial Irrigation District's Allocation

    Background: Several commenters have argued that Imperial Irrigation 
District (IID) should forfeit 15 MW of its P-DP allocation based on the 
Bureau of Reclamation's 1948 allocation of Davis Dam power that 
potentially subjected half of IID's 30-MW allocation to recapture when 
Pilot Knob Powerplant became operational. However, in 1954 the Bureau 
of Reclamation determined that the recapture of the 15 MW was not 
warranted. IID has been allocated at least 30 MW in all subsequent P-DP 
marketing actions.
    Comments and discussion: Western received several requests to 
reduce Imperial Irrigation District's (IID) allocation by 15 MW. 
Western has reviewed the issue and has determined that there was, and 
is, no legal requirement for the Bureau of Reclamation or Western to 
reduce IID's allocation. IID's contract will be extended on the same 
basis as all other P-DP contracts.

Colorado River Commission's Allocation

    Background: The Colorado River Commission (CRC) resells P-DP power 
to five manufacturing companies. This action has led to allegations 
that CRC is violating long-standing provisions of Reclamation Law by 
reselling its P-DP

[[Page 23713]]

energy to nonpreference customers. In response, CRC cites a 1980 
Comptroller General decision that addressed a similar issue on the 
Falcon-Amistad Project. In that case, the Comptroller General ruled 
that the preference restriction pertained only to the initial sale of 
power and not to any subsequent sale by the preference customer, and 
that since the contract between the parties included no additional 
prohibition against resales, none existed.
    Comments and discussion: Some commenters stated that CRC's 
allocation should be reduced by the amount of energy being resold to 
nonpreference entities. Historically, CRC has some customers that are 
nonpreference entities and CRC's contract with Western has allowed 
sales to these customers. Therefore, Western has no basis to reduce 
CRC's allocation because of these sales. Western will not reduce CRC's 
allocation as long as CRC complies with applicable laws, regulations, 
and the terms and conditions of its P-DP FES contract.

Native American Issues

    Background: Western no longer requires utility status for Native 
American tribes as a prerequisite for receiving power allocations. That 
means more tribes may apply for allocations of P-DP hydropower as 
preference entities. In previous Western PMI remarketing efforts, 
tribes received a large part of resource pool allocations.
    Comments and discussion: Some commenters said Western should create 
a larger resource pool. They believe that this would help Western 
allocate power that approximates 65 percent of qualified Native 
American applicants' load, a goal set during the Salt Lake City Area 
Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP) reallocation process. Western set the 65-
percent level as a goal, not a requirement. It was also specific to the 
SLCA/IP remarketing effort.
    Another commenter, who favored a complete reallocation, said it is 
unfair to prevent Native American tribes from participating fully in 
the current marketing effort, since the requirement for utility status 
prevented them from receiving P-DP allocations in the past. Western 
invites the tribes to participate fully in the current remarketing 
effort. In fact, Western has increased the resource pool size to 17 MW, 
making more resources available to potential new customers within the 
P-DP marketing area, including Native American tribes.
    Another commenter asked Western to create a separate ``new user 
category'' for tribes. The comments included with the EPAMP regulations 
(60 FR 54151, 54167, October 20, 1995) state,

    Western declines to create a special class of power exclusively 
for tribes. In the absence of direction from Congress to the 
contrary, Western believes it is inequitable to create 
administratively a special, preferential classification for Indians.

    In contrast, one commenter stated that his utility ``would 
strenuously object to another attempt to carve out a specific portion 
of whatever resource pool is created to meet additional tribal 
requirements.'' Western will accept applications from all eligible 
preference entities and will not set aside a specific part of the 
resource pool for any specific customer class.
    Background: The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) have a 
reservation that spans parts of Arizona and California. The tribes 
applied for and received an allocation for the tribal load in Arizona; 
however, the load in California fell outside the SLCA/IP marketing 
area.
    Comments and discussion: CRIT commented that Western told the 
tribes that they ``could look to Parker-Davis for the load that was not 
covered (by SLCA/IP).'' In a Federal Register notice concerning the 
SLCA/IP (67 FR 5113, 5114), published February 4, 2002, Western stated:

    Any expansion of the (SLCA/IP) marketing area to include 
portions of reservations in California is outside the scope of this 
effort. The portions of reservations in California are within the 
Parker-Davis Project marketing area. Power resource pools from these 
projects will be allocated effective upon expiration of existing 
contracts on September 30, 2008. Tribes with reservation lands and 
eligible loads in California may be able to participate in that 
process.

    This statement does not amount to an entitlement for CRIT. However, 
Western welcomes resource allocation applications from all eligible 
preference customers, including tribes. We will address the application 
process and criteria in a future public process.

Other Comments

    Western received a request to abandon Integrated Resource Planning 
(IRP) requirements for P-DP contractors. This request is outside the 
scope of this process. Section 114 of the National Energy Policy Act of 
1992 (Pub. L. 102-486) requires all Western contractors to submit IRPs 
as a condition of receiving Federal hydropower. Since Western's PMI 
also requires contractors to complete IRPs, this requirement will 
continue for P-DP contractors.
    A commenter asked that Western return unallocated energy to 
contractors on October 1, 2008. In 10 CFR part 905.32(e)(1), the PMI 
regulations state,

    If power is reserved for new customers but not allocated, or 
resources are offered but not placed under contract, this power will 
be offered on a pro rata basis to customers that contributed to the 
resource pool through application of the extension formula in Sec.  
905.33.

    Other commenters asked Western to evaluate the P-DP resource in 
relationship to the requirements of the restructured and evolving power 
industry, and to work with the control area operator to ensure P-DP 
customers receive credit for their ancillary services. There is a great 
deal of uncertainty surrounding industry restructuring. The Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has proposed a standard market 
design that has not been finalized. Several regional transmission 
organizations are attempting to form in the southwestern United States, 
including the P-DP marketing area. These organizations do not plan to 
begin operations for several years after the effective date of contract 
extensions. It is not possible to anticipate which changes will occur 
to the electric utility industry, or when. Western continually monitors 
utility industry changes and actively participates in regional 
organizations.
    Western received a request to exempt Fredonia, Arizona, from the 
Central Arizona Project recovery cost because the town receives no 
benefits from CAP. Because the purpose of this process is to determine 
the applicability of the EPAMP PMI to the P-DP, this issue is outside 
the scope of this process.
    Western was asked whether P-DP's operational integration with the 
Boulder Canyon Project (BCP) will continue. Applying the PMI also means 
applying the existing marketing plan. Therefore, operational 
integration will continue under the existing marketing plan contained 
in the Conformed General Consolidated Power Marketing Criteria or 
Regulations for Boulder City Area Projects (49 FR 50582, December 28, 
1984).
    Some commenters said that Western should evaluate whether project 
integration will continue past 2017. Changes to existing marketing 
criteria are outside the scope of this public process. It is too early 
to make decisions about contracts that expire 14 years from now in 
2017.
    The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California requested 
confirmation that it will be eligible for an allocation as a new 
customer. Dixie Power Water Light and Telephone requested that the P-DP 
marketing area be expanded to include Kane and

[[Page 23714]]

Washington counties in southern Utah. Because the purpose of this 
process is to determine the applicability of the EPAMP PMI to the P-DP, 
these issues are outside the scope of this public process. These issues 
may be addressed in a future public process regarding resource pool 
marketing criteria.
    Western received comments to reopen the comment period. Some 
commenters wanted to respond to comments submitted during the first 
comment period. Western accepted comments after the official comment 
period ended, which gave commenters an opportunity to respond. However, 
Western received no new or additional information beyond that submitted 
during the comment period. We believe a new comment period is 
unnecessary. Western has enough information to make a decision.
    Some commenters asked Western to recognize the agency relationship 
between a generation and transmission cooperative and a distribution 
cooperative. Another asked Western to prevent windfalls for utilities 
providing service to tribal customers that establish their own utility 
or change utility services providers. The commenter said the original 
provider's allocation should be reduced proportionately. These requests 
are outside the scope of this decision, and Western will resolve 
questions regarding cooperatives' and providing utilities' 
relationships and allocations as they arise.
    Western was also asked to replace generation lost through water 
transfers caused by water use and operational needs. Western does not 
have control of water transfer decisions. The Bureau of Reclamation 
decides when to make water transfers, so this comment is outside the 
scope of this decision.

I. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) 
requires Federal agencies to do a regulatory flexibility analysis if a 
rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a 
general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this 
action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a 
rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services 
applicable to public property.

II. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Western determined this rule is exempt from congressional 
notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a 
rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services 
and involving matters of procedure.

III. Determination Under Executive Order 12866

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

IV. Environmental Compliance

    Western completed an environmental impact statement (EIS) on EPAMP 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Western 
published the Record of Decision in the Federal Register (60 FR 53181, 
October 12, 1995). Western's NEPA review assured all environmental 
effects related to these actions have been analyzed.

    Dated: April 17, 2003.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-11009 Filed 5-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P