Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Notices 34151

12372, ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of

Federal Programs.’’

Executive Order Statement

This funding notice was determined

to be ‘‘not significant’’ for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Karen H. Brown,

Deputy Director, NIST.

[FR Doc. 00–13299 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Solicitation of Public Comments on

Establishing a Review Process for

Mandatory Conditions Developed by

the Departments of the Interior and

Commerce in the Context of

Hydropower Licensing

AGENCIES: Office of the Secretary,

Interior; National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of public

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Interior and the Department of

Commerce (Departments) have

committed to establishing a review

process for the mandatory conditions

and prescriptions the Departments

develop as part of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission’s hydropower

licensing proceedings under part I of the

Federal Power Act. The Departments

have convened a joint drafting

committee to develop such a process

and, with the input of the public and

agency field staffs, will be exploring a

variety of options in the coming months.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please submit all comments

to Liz Birnbaum, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Solicitor’s Office, MS–6352,

1849 C Street, NW 20240, or by email:

<MARP@ios.doi.gov>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liz

Birnbaum, U.S. Department of the

Interior, 202–208–4423, or Stephen

Waste, U.S. Department of Commerce,

301–713–2325, extension 182.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pursuant to Part I of the Federal

Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq., the

Department of the Interior and

Department of Commerce possess

certain authorities in the process for

licensing non-federal hydroelectric

generating facilities. Although the final

licensing decision lies with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission

(Commission), various bureaus of the

Departments provide input to the

Commission on a number of issues

related to the license application.

Among others, the Departments’

authorities include the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s and National Marine

Fisheries Service’s authority to

prescribe fishways under section 18 of

the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 811,

and the Secretary of the Interior’s

authority with respect to land

‘‘reservations’’ that may contain nonfederal hydropower project works, to

establish conditions ‘‘necessary for the

adequate protection and utilization of

such reservations’’ under section 4(e) of

the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 797(e).

These reservations may include lands

managed principally by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, the National Park

Service, the Bureau of Land

Management, the Bureau of Reclamation

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The Federal Power Act states that

both section 18 prescriptions and

section 4(e) conditions must be

included in any license issued by the

Commission. The mandatory nature of

these prescriptions and conditions has

been upheld by Federal courts,

including the Supreme Court.

Escondido Mutual Water Co. v. La Jolla

Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765

(1984); Bangor Hydroelectric Co. v.

FERC, 78 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 1996);

American Rivers v. FERC, 129 F.3d 99

(2d Cir. 1997); American Rivers v. FERC,

187 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 1999). After

incorporation into a license, the

prescriptions and conditions are subject

to judicial review under the appeal

procedures of the Federal Power Act,

which places exclusive jurisdiction in

the Federal courts of appeals (16 U.S.C.

8251(b)).

Currently, the Departments try to

work closely with the license applicant

in developing mandatory prescriptions

and conditions. However, the

Departments understand the interest of

licensees and others in having a more

formal opportunity to provide input on

the Departments’ mandatory conditions

before FERC issues a license. Such a

review process mechanism would

provide an opportunity for the

Departments and interested parties to

work together to improve prescriptions

and conditions in advance of license

issuance. While it is generally thought

that this process would only be

appropriate in a traditional process

licensing, the Departments will also

evaluate whether such a mechanism

should be available for prescriptions

and conditions developed during

negotiations under the Commission’s

alternative licensing procedure, or other

settlement negotiations.

Before the Departments can establish

a review process, a number of issues

must be considered and addressed. The

Departments do not wish to institute a

review process that causes significant

delays in developing prescriptions and

conditions, or creates unnecessary

procedural burdens on the Commission,

licensees, or on to balance the need to

obtain timely, meaningful input with

their legal obligation to support

conditions and prescriptions with

substantial evidence in the record.

Furthermore, in consideration of

increasingly significant resource

constraints, the Departments must adopt

a procedure that is not too burdensome.

Timing will be a particularly

important consideration in establishing

a review process. While the

Departments often have an opportunity

to review and comment on draft

hydropower licensing applications

before the applications are due, they

typically do not see the final license

application until it is submitted to the

Commission. The Departments therefore

have very little time to analyze the

application and develop appropriate

prescriptions and conditions. In

addition, they often must wait to receive

additional environmental information

before being able to develop section 18

prescriptions or Section 4(e) conditions.

Commission rules ask that the

Departments submit prescriptions and

conditions within 60 days after the

Commission determines that the

application is complete and ready for

environmental review. Where there is

sufficient information to support a

preliminary prescription or condition,

the Departments normally take this time

to develop prescriptions and conditions

that address the application as written,

leaving little time for any kind of review

process. Once the prescriptions and

conditions have bean submitted, the

Commission’s regulations provide a

narrow 45-day comment period for

public comments. Therefore, in

developing a review process, the

Departments must consider whether to

delay their submissions to the

Commission in order to accommodate

the new process, use the time period

already contemplated under the

Commission’s regulations, or take

otherstreps to integrate this new process

into the licensing procedure.

34152 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Notices

Issues To Be Addressed

Based on the cited considerations, the

Departments are seeking public

comment on the following questions:

1. Should a review process be adopted

and, if so, what kind of process should

be established?

2. If so, how could such a process be

integrated into the Commission’s

current licensing procedures in a timely

and efficient manner? To meet the

constraints of timeliness and resource

limitations, are changes needed in the

timing or implementation of various

steps in the agencies’—including the

Commission’s—existing regulations or

procedures? If not, then when should

the review process take place?

3. If, under any review process

mechanism, it were not possible to

avoid delaying the overall licensing

process, would it still be worth

establishing such a process?

4. Should the review process for

Section 4(e) and Section 18 be the same?

5. Who should be allowed to initiate

and/or participate in the review

process? Should it be limited to the

license applicant? Should it be limited

to formal parties (i.e., intervenors) to the

Commission’s licensing process (note

that, depending upon when the review

process takes place, there may not yet be

intervenors before the Commission)?

Should the opportunity be available to

anyone with an interest in the project?

6. Should the new process be

available for prescriptions and

conditions agreed upon pursuant to the

Commission’s streamlined alternative

licensing procedure—a process that

already provides considerable

opportunity for communication and

negotiation among the Departments and

other interested parties?

Alex Matthiessen,

Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary,

U.S. Department of the Interior.

Andrew Rosenberg,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Department of Commerce.

[FR Doc. 00–13265 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35).

Title and OMB Number: Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) Appendix I, DoD

Pilot Mentor Prote ́ge

 ́ Program

Improvements; OMB Number 0704–

0412.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 145.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 145.

Average Burden per Response: 3

hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 435 (145

reporting hours and 290 recordkeeping

hours).

Needs and Uses: The new information

collection required by Appendix I,

Policy and Procedures for the DoD Pilot

Mentor-Prote ́ge

 ́ Program, is required by

section 811 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000

(Public Law 106–65). DoD will use the

information to assess whether the

purposes of the Pilot Mentor-Prote ́ge

 ́

Program have been attained and to

prepare the reports to Congress required

by section 811 of Public Law 106–65.

DFARS Appendix I requires a prote ́ge

 ́

firm to report on its progress under a

mentor-prote ́ge

 ́ agreement by concurring

with or rebutting its mentor firm’s yearend report. The prote ́

ge

 ́ firm also must

provide data on its employment,

revenues, and participation in Dod

contracts. The report is required

annually during the prote ́ge

 ́ firm’s

program participation term and for two

fiscal years after the expiration of the

program participation term.

Affected Public: Business or Other

For-Profit.

Frequency: Annually.

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

Obtain or Retain Benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Lewis W.

Oleinick.

Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Mr. Oleinick at the Office of

Management and Budget, Desk Officer

for DoD (Acquisition), Room 10236,

New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert

Cushing.

Written requests for copies of the

information collection proposal should

be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR,

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite

1204, Arlington, VA 22202–4302.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense,

[FR Doc. 00–13286 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35).

Title, Form Number, and OMB

Number: Pentagon Reservation Parking

Permit Application; DD Form 1199;

OMB Number 0704–0395.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 10,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 10,000.

Average Burden per Response: 5

minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 833.

Needs and Uses: The information

collection requirement is necessary for

the administration and management of

the Pentagon’s parking control program,

which is designed to meet the

government mandated car pool program.

Respondents are Department of Defense

and non-DoD personnel who utilize

designated parking areas on the

Pentagon Reservation. The Pentagon

Reservation Parking Permit Application,

DD Form 1199, is a machine read form

that includes information, such as

name, rank or grade, Social Security

Number (SSN), and vehicle license plate

number, required for the issuance and

control of the parking permit. The DD

Form 1199 is scanned into a

computerized database designed for the

administration of the Pentagon’s parking

control program. Each member of a

Pentagon Reservation authorized car

pool or individual parking permit

holder is required to complete and

submit the DD Form 1199 upon initial

application and annually thereafter.

Affected Public: Individuals or

Households.

Frequency: On Occasion; Annually.

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

Obtain or Retain Benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C.

Springer.

Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to