54454 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2011 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General questions concerning the 

proposed action and the DEIS can be 

directed to: Hannah Hadley, Study 

Environmental Coordinator (see 

ADDRESSES) or Daniel Johnson, Project 

Manager, Seattle District, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, P.O. 3755, Seattle, 

WA 98124–3755, ATTN: CENWS–EN– 

CM–CJ; telephone (206) 764–3423; fax 

(206) 764–4470; or e-mail 

Daniel.E.Johnson@usace.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NOI 

to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Skagit River General 

Investigation Study (previously 

advertised as the Skagit River Flood 

Damage Reduction Study), Skagit 

County, Washington was published in 

the July 29, 2011 Federal Register (76 

FR 45543) for review and comment. 

Comments regarding the NOI were 

required to be received on or before 

August 29, 2011. During the comment 

period, requests to extend the comment 

period were received. 

In response to these requests, the 

comment period for the NOI has been 

extended through September 9, 2011. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22389 Filed 8–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Issuance of Loan Guarantee to 

Genesis Solar, LLC, for the Genesis 

Solar Energy Project 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) announces its decision to 

issue a loan guarantee under Title XVII 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 

2005) to Genesis Solar, LLC, for 

construction and startup of the Genesis 

Solar Energy Project (GSEP), a 250- 

megawatt (MW) nominal capacity solar 

power generating facility on 

approximately 1,950 acres, all of which 

is administered by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), in Riverside 

County, California. The environmental 

impacts of constructing and operating 

this project were analyzed pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) in Plan Amendment/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Genesis Solar Energy Project, Riverside 

County, California (75 Federal Register 

[FR] 52736; August 27, 2010) (Final 

EIS), prepared by the BLM Palm 

Springs-South Coast Field Office with 

DOE as a cooperating agency. BLM 

consulted DOE during preparation of 

the EIS, DOE provided comments, and 

BLM addressed those comments in the 

Final EIS. DOE subsequently 

determined that its own NEPA 

procedures had been satisfied and 

adopted the Final EIS. (75 FR 78993; 

December 17, 2010) 

ADDRESSES: Copies of this Record of 

Decision (ROD) and the Final EIS may 

be obtained by contacting Matthew 

McMillen, NEPA Compliance Officer, 

Environmental Compliance Division, 

Loan Programs Office (LP–10), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; telephone 202– 

586–7248; or e-mail 

Matthew.Mcmillen@hq.doe.gov. The 

Final EIS and this ROD are also 

available on the DOE NEPA Web site at: 

http://nepa.energy.gov, and on the Loan 

Programs Web site at: http:// 

www.loanprograms.energy.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this ROD, 

contact Matthew McMillen, as indicated 

in the ADDRESSES section above. For 

general information about the DOE 

NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, 

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance (GC–54), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone 

202–586–4600; leave a message at 800– 

472–2756; or e-mail 

AskNEPA@hq.doe.gov. Information 

about DOE NEPA activities and access 

to DOE NEPA documents are available 

through the DOE NEPA Web site at 

http://nepa.energy.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The GSEP is a proposed concentrating 

solar electrical generating facility using 

parabolic trough technology with a drycooling system and associated facilities 

located on approximately 1,950 acres of 

BLM-administered Federal land in 

Riverside County, California, 

approximately 27 miles east of the 

unincorporated community of Desert 

Center and 25 miles west of the 

Arizona-California border city of Blythe. 

The GSEP will consist of two 

independent solar electric generating 

facilities with a net electrical output of 

125 MW each, resulting in a total net 

electrical output of 250 MW. In addition 

to the generating facility, the project 

includes a distribution line, a 14-mile 

electrical transmission line, fiber-optic 

lines, a natural-gas pipeline, and a 6.5- 

mile access road. A double-circuit 230- 

kilovolt (kV) transmission line will be 

constructed to connect to the Southern 

California Edison Colorado River 

substation via the existing Blythe 

Energy Project Transmission Line 

between the Julian Hinds and Buck 

substations. The linear facilities will 

encompass approximately 90 acres 

outside the proposed project site. 

On January 31, 2007, BLM’s Palm 

Springs-South Coast Field Office 

received an application pursuant to 

Title V of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (43 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] 1761) for a right-of-way (ROW) 

to construct, operate, maintain, and 

decommission a project identified as the 

NextEra Ford Dry Lake Solar Power 

Plant on BLM-administered Federal 

land in Riverside County, California. In 

June 2009, the applicant notified BLM 

that the company name was being 

changed to Genesis Solar, LLC, and the 

project became known as the Genesis 

Solar Energy Project (GSEP). The BLM 

California Desert Conservation Area 

(CDCA) Plan requires that all sites 

associated with power generation or 

transmission not identified in the CDCA 

Plan be considered through the plan 

amendment process. BLM approved the 

Proposed Plan Amendment to the CDCA 

Plan to allow the GSEP and approved a 

solar energy ROW to Genesis Solar, LLC, 

for the project; on November 4, 2010, 

the Secretary of the Interior approved 

these decisions. 

In June 2010, Genesis Solar, LLC 

applied to DOE for a loan guarantee 

under Title XVII of EPAct 2005, as 

amended by Section 406 of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009. (Recovery Act) On 

September 1, 2010, DOE invited the 

applicant to submit a Part II application 

in accordance with the DOE Federal 

Loan Guarantee Solicitation for 

Commercial Technology Renewable 

Energy Generation Projects under the 

Financial Institution Partnership 

Program, No. DE–FOA–0000166. On 

November 17, 2010, Genesis Solar, LLC 

submitted its Part II application for an 

$800 million loan guarantee to support 

the financing of the GSEP. 

NEPA Review 

BLM was the lead Federal agency in 

the preparation of the Genesis Solar 

Energy Project EIS, and DOE was a 

cooperating agency pursuant to a 

Memorandum of Agreement between 

DOE and BLM signed in January 2010. 

DOE reviewed the content of the draft 

EIS and provided comments to BLM to 

ensure that the DOE NEPA regulations 

(10 Code of Federal Regulations part 

1021) were satisfied. 

On November 23, 2009, the BLM 

published the ‘‘Notice of Intent to 

Prepare an Environmental Impact 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2011 / Notices 54455 

Statement/Staff Assessment for the 

NextEra Ford Dry Lake Solar Power 

Plant, Riverside County, CA, and 

Possible Land Use Plan Amendment’’ in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 61167), with 

a 30-day scoping period for public 

comments that closed on December 23, 

2009. The project name later changed to 

Genesis Solar Energy Project. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a Notice of Availability of the 

Draft EIS and the Draft CDCA Plan 

Amendment for GSEP in the Federal 

Register on April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18204). 

The Draft EIS was available for a 90-day 

public comment period, which closed 

on July 8, 2010. Comments received on 

the Draft EIS were addressed in the Plan 

Amendment and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Genesis Solar 

Energy Project, and EPA published a 

Notice of Availability in the Federal 

Register on August 27, 2010 (75 FR 

52736). BLM made the Final EIS 

available for an additional 30-day public 

review and comment period from 

August 27 to September 27, 2010. All 

substantive comments received during 

the 30-day public review and comment 

period were responded to in Appendix 

1 of the Record of Decision for the 

Genesis Solar Energy Project and 

Amendment to the California Desert 

Conservation Area Resource 

Management Plan, Riverside County, CA 

(BLM ROD). BLM published its ROD in 

the Federal Register on November 12, 

2010 (75 FR 69458). Links to these 

documents can be found at the BLM 

Web site: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/ 

prog/energy/fasttrack/genesis/ 

fedstatus.html. 

On October 7, 2010, DOE received a 

comment letter from the California 

Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE) 

regarding Colorado River water rights 

and the need for an approved water 

allocation for GSEP. DOE reviewed the 

comment responses prepared by BLM 

and published in the Final EIS and the 

information provided in the BLM ROD, 

and concurs with BLM as stated in its 

ROD that: 

The BLM has thoroughly reviewed the 

regulatory framework regarding the use of the 

accounting surface methodology of 

determining impacts to the Colorado River 

and determined that no formal regulation 

exists that requires Genesis to acquire an 

allocation at this time. The Bureau of 

Reclamation has not finalized its rule on the 

accounting surface methodology for the 

Colorado River. This ROD recognizes that, 

should a rulemaking be finalized on the 

currently proposed accounting surface 

method, the BLM will work with Genesis to 

ensure that appropriate processes are 

followed to obtain such an allocation. (BLM 

ROD, Section 1.2, page 13) 

Alternatives Considered 

BLM considered six alternatives: (1) 

The project identified in the Final EIS 

as the Proposed Action (parabolic 

trough technology with wet cooling); (2) 

the Dry Cooling Alternative (identified 

in the Final EIS as the Preferred 

Alternative and ultimately selected by 

BLM); (3) the Reduced Acreage 

Alternative; (4) No Action Alternative 

A; (5) No Action Alternative B; and (6) 

No Action Alternative C (under which 

no ROW grant for the GSEP would be 

authorized but the CDCA Plan would be 

amended). Chapter 2 of the Final EIS 

describes these alternatives in detail, 

and they are fully analyzed in Chapters 

3 and 4 of the Final EIS. 

The Dry Cooling Alternative, 

identified as the BLM Selected 

Alternative in the BLM ROD, requires 

mitigation measures identified in 

Chapter 4 of the Final EIS; the complete 

language of these measures, terms, and 

conditions is provided in Appendix G, 

Conditions of Certification, of the Final 

EIS. BLM has incorporated these 

requirements as terms and conditions 

into the ROW. In addition, BLM 

developed a Compliance Monitoring 

Plan, which is included as Appendix 6 

to the BLM ROD. 

The DOE decision is whether or not 

to issue a loan guarantee to Genesis 

Solar, LLC for $800 million to support 

construction and startup of the GSEP. 

Accordingly, the DOE alternatives in the 

Final EIS are (1) Issue the loan 

guarantee for construction and startup 

of the GSEP under the Dry Cooling 

Alternative identified as the BLM 

Selected Alternative in the BLM ROD, 

and (2) the No Action Alternative. 

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE 

would not issue a loan guarantee for the 

project, and it is not likely that Genesis 

Solar, LLC would implement the project 

as currently planned. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The BLM ROD identifies three 

environmentally preferable alternatives: 

(1) No Action Alternative A, under 

which BLM would not approve the 

ROW for the GSEP and would not 

amend the CDCA Plan; (2) No Action 

Alternative B, under which BLM would 

not authorize the ROW for the GSEP but 

would amend the CDCA Plan to make 

the project site unavailable for any type 

of solar energy development; and (3) the 

Dry Cooling Alternative, under which 

the project would use dry cooling 

technology to generate the same energy 

output using the same footprint but 

would reduce water consumption by 

87%. No Action Alternatives A and B 

would not have impacts on the ground. 

However, neither of these alternatives 

would allow the development of 

renewable energy, which is a national 

priority. The Dry Cooling Alternative is 

the BLM Preferred Alternative in the 

Final EIS and is identified as the 

Selected Alternative in the BLM ROD 

because it allows the development of 

renewable energy. No wetlands would 

be filled and no delineated floodplains 

would be affected under the Dry Cooling 

Alternative. 

DOE has decided that its Alternative 

1, to issue a loan guarantee for 

construction and startup of the GSEP 

under the Dry Cooling Alternative, is 

environmentally preferable. DOE has 

determined that this alternative offers 

environmental benefits due to a 

reduction in impacts to water resources, 

while allowing the project’s total 

generation capacity of 250 MW of 

renewable energy development. In 

addition, DOE has determined that this 

alternative offers substantial 

environmental benefits due to 

anticipated reductions in greenhouse 

gas emissions as described in the Final 

EIS, and that all practicable means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm, 

as described in the BLM ROD and its 

appendices for the GSEP, are adopted as 

required mitigation measures by BLM. 

Consultation 

As the lead Federal agency for the 

GSEP, BLM complied with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

and consulted with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, the 

California State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and interested Native American 

tribes; complied with Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act and 

consulted with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; and entered into 

government-to-government 

consultations with a number of tribal 

governments. In addition, BLM 

consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, which determined that the 

project site does not impact waters of 

the United States and that a Clean Water 

Act permit will not be required, and the 

State of California and Riverside County 

regarding compliance with state and 

local laws. Section 5.5 of the BLM ROD 

summarizes consultations with agencies 

and other entities. 

Intentional Destructive Acts 

As a part of its own review, DOE 

verified that the potential 

environmental impact of acts of 

terrorism, sabotage or other intentional 

destructive acts was considered in the 

Final EIS. DOE concluded that the 

proposed GSEP presents an unlikely 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
54456 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 170 / Thursday, September 1, 2011 / Notices 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, part B was re-designated part A. 

target for an act of terrorism or sabotage. 

Further, as discussed in the Final EIS, 

the site security measures provide 

appropriate levels of security to protect 

electrical infrastructure from malicious 

mischief, vandalism, or domestic/ 

foreign terrorist attacks. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to issue a loan 

guarantee for construction and startup 

of GSEP under the Dry Cooling 

Alternative, as described in the Final 

EIS and BLM ROD. 

Approval of the loan guarantee for 

GSEP responds to the DOE purpose and 

need pursuant to Section 1705 of EPAct 

2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511–16514), which 

was added to EPAct 2005 by the 

Recovery Act. Section 1705 authorizes a 

program for rapid deployment of 

renewable energy projects and related 

manufacturing facilities, electric power 

transmission projects, and leading-edge 

biofuels projects. The primary purposes 

of the Recovery Act are job preservation 

and creation, infrastructure investment, 

energy efficiency and science, assistance 

to the unemployed, and state and local 

fiscal stabilization. The Section 1705 

program is designed to address the 

economic conditions of the Nation, in 

part, through renewable energy, 

transmission, and leading-edge biofuels 

projects. Eligible projects must 

commence construction by September 

30, 2011. 

Mitigation 

The GSEP project for which DOE has 

decided to issue a loan guarantee 

includes mitigation measures, terms, 

and conditions applied by BLM in its 

ROW. The mitigation measures, terms, 

and conditions represent practicable 

means to avoid or minimize 

environmental impacts from the 

selected alternative (the Dry Cooling 

Alternative). BLM is lead Federal 

agency for the GSEP project under 

NEPA and is responsible for ensuring 

compliance with all adopted mitigation 

measures, terms, and conditions for the 

GSEP project set forth in the Final EIS 

and ROD. The complete language of the 

mitigation measures, terms, and 

conditions is provided in Appendix G of 

the Final EIS, and the Compliance 

Monitoring Plan is provided in 

Appendix 6 of the BLM ROD. BLM has 

also incorporated the mitigation 

measures, terms, and conditions into the 

ROW as terms and conditions. 

The DOE loan guarantee agreement 

requires that the applicant comply with 

all applicable laws and the terms of the 

ROW, including mitigation measures. 

An applicant’s failure to comply with 

applicable laws and the ROW would 

constitute a default. Upon continuance 

of a default, DOE would have the right 

under the loan guarantee agreement 

between DOE and the applicant to 

exercise usual and customary remedies. 

To ensure that the applicant so 

performs, the Loan Programs Office 

monitors all operative loan guarantee 

transactions. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 

2011. 

Jonathan M. Silver, 

Executive Director, Loan Programs Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22403 Filed 8–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. RF–019] 

Petition for Waiver and Notice of 

Granting the Application for Interim 

Waiver of Samsung from the 

Department of Energy Residential 

Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

Test Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Petition for Waiver 

and Request for Public Comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

of and publishes the Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung) 

petition for waiver (hereafter, 

‘‘petition’’) from specified portions of 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

test procedure for determining the 

energy consumption of electric 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

The waiver request pertains to certain 

basic models in Samsung’s product 

lines that incorporate multiple defrost 

cycles. In its petition, Samsung provides 

an alternate test procedure that is the 

same as the test procedure DOE 

published in an interim final rule. DOE 

solicits comments, data, and 

information concerning Samsung’s 

petition and the suggested alternate test 

procedure. DOE also publishes notice of 

the grant of an interim waiver to 

Samsung. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information with respect to the 

Samsung Petition until, but no later 

than October 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by case number ‘‘RF–019,’’ by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: AS_Waiver_Requests@ee. 

doe.gov Include the case number [Case 

No. RF–017] in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J/ 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed original paper copy. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

review the background documents 

relevant to this matter, you may visit the 

U.S. Department of Energy, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., (Resource Room of the 

Building Technologies Program), 

Washington, DC, 20024; (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Available documents include the 

following items: (1) This notice; (2) 

public comments received; (3) the 

petition for waiver and application for 

interim waiver; and (4) prior DOE 

rulemakings regarding similar 

refrigerator-freezers. Please call Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at the above telephone 

number for additional information 

regarding visiting the Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9611. E-mail: 

Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mail Stop GC–71, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7796. E-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III, part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified, established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles, a 

program covering most major household 

appliances, which includes the electric 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

that are the focus of this notice.1 Part B 

includes definitions, test procedures, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES