19950 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices 

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 

67,550. 

Status: Revision of a currently 

approved collection. 

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as 

amended. 

Dated: April 16, 2007. 

Lillian L. Deitzer, 

Departmental Paperwork Reduction Act 

Officer, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7–7480 Filed 4–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–5125–N–16] 

Federal Property Suitable as Facilities 

To Assist the Homeless 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Community Planning and 

Development, HUD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies 

unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 

surplus Federal property reviewed by 

HUD for suitability for possible use to 

assist the homeless. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Room 7262, 

451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234; 

TTY number for the hearing- and 

speech-impaired (202) 708–2565, (these 

telephone numbers are not toll-free), or 

call the toll-free Title V information line 

at 1–800–927–7588. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the December 12, 1988 

court order in National Coalition for the 

Homeless v. Veterans Administration, 

No. 88–2503–OG (D.D.C.), HUD 

publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, 

identifying unutilized, underutilized, 

excess and surplus Federal buildings 

and real property that HUD has 

reviewed for suitability for use to assist 

the homeless. Today’s Notice is for the 

purpose of announcing that no 

additional properties have been 

determined suitable or unsuitable this 

week. 

Dated: April 12, 2007. 

Mark R. Johnston, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. 

[FR Doc. E7–7284 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Rate Adjustments for Indian Irrigation 

Projects 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Rate Adjustments. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) owns, or has an interest in, 

irrigation facilities located on various 

Indian reservations throughout the 

United States. We are authorized to 

establish rates to recover the costs to 

administer, operate, maintain, and 

rehabilitate those facilities. We are 

notifying you that we have adjusted the 

irrigation assessment rates at several of 

our irrigation facilities for operation and 

maintenance. 

DATES: Effective Date: The irrigation 

assessment rates shown in the tables are 

effective on January 1, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

details about a particular BIA irrigation 

project, please use the tables in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section to 

contact the regional or local office 

where the project is located. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice 

of Proposed Rate Adjustment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 24, 2006 (71 FR 67897), to 

adjust the irrigation rates at several BIA 

irrigation facilities. The public and 

interested parties were provided an 

opportunity to submit written 

comments during the 60-day period 

prior to January 23, 2007. 

Did the BIA defer any proposed rate 

increases? 

For the Uintah Indian Irrigation 

Project, the BIA, in consultation with 

the tribes and Irrigation Project water 

users, has deferred the rate increase for 

2007. 

For the Flathead Indian Irrigation 

Project, the BIA, in consultation with 

the tribes and Irrigation Project water 

users, has deferred the rate increase for 

2008. 

Did the BIA receive any comments on 

the proposed irrigation assessment rate 

adjustments? 

Written comments were received for 

the proposed rate adjustments for the 

Blackfeet Irrigation Project, Montana, 

Fort Peck Irrigation Project, Montana, 

Fort Belknap Irrigation Project, 

Montana, the Flathead Irrigation Project, 

Montana, the San Carlos Irrigation 

Project—Joint Works (SCIP–JW), 

Arizona, Walker River Irrigation Project, 

Nevada, and the Wind River Irrigation 

Project, Wyoming. 

What issues were of concern by the 

commenters? 

The commenters were concerned with 

one or more of the following issues: (1) 

How funds collected from stakeholders 

are expended on operation and 

maintenance (O&M); (2) the impact of 

an assessment rate increase on the local 

agricultural economy and on individual 

land owners and irrigators; (3) BIA O&M 

subsidies for trust land; (4) drainage of 

water from farm lands and on farm 

improvements; (5) non-delivery of water 

to water users with outstanding O&M 

charges. The following comments are 

specific to the Walker River Irrigation 

Project, Nevada: (1) Safety of dams 

project which will shorten water 

delivery time; (2) breach of trust issues; 

and (3) whether the rate increase 

violates federal law. The following 

comments are specific to the San Carlos 

Irrigation Project—Joint Works: (1) The 

amount of project reserve funds, 

income, and expenditures; and (2) the 

timeliness of the rate adjustment notice. 

How does BIA respond to the concern 

of how funds are expended for O&M? 

BIA includes the following expenses 

in irrigation project budgets: Project 

personnel costs; materials and supplies; 

vehicle and equipment repairs; 

equipment; capitalization expenses; 

acquisition expenses; rehabilitation 

costs; maintenance of a reserve fund for 

contingencies or emergencies; and other 

expenses we determine necessary to 

properly operate and maintain the 

irrigation projects. 

One common misconception water 

users have is that all salary costs are 

administrative. Only a portion of each 

project budget is for administrative 

costs. The administrative costs include 

the office costs, office staff (accounting 

and clerical), and a portion of the 

project manager’s salary. The O&M 

workers are considered O&M costs for 

operating and maintaining the project. 

The Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) completed an audit report 

(GAO–06–314) in February 2006. In that 

report, the GAO recommended that the 

BIA require project managers to meet at 

least twice annually with water users. 

On July 21, 2006, the Director, BIA, 

directed each BIA revenue-generating 

irrigation project to meet, at a minimum, 

twice annually with its water users—

once at the end of the irrigation season 

and once before the next season. For 

projects that operate year round, those 

projects will determine their best 

schedule for holding these meetings. At 

these meetings, the irrigation staff will 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES