Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Notices 77343

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area

(SRA) Advisory Council

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: An Opal Creek Scenic

Recreation Area Advisory Council

meeting will convene in Stayton,

Oregon on Monday, January 22, 2001.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 6

p.m., and will conclude at

approximately 8:30 p.m. The meeting

will be held in the South Room of the

Stayton Community Center located on

400 West Virginia Street in Stayton,

Oregon.

The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal

Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act of

1996 (Opal Creek Act) (Pub. L. 104–208)

directed the Secretary of Agriculture to

establish the Opal Creek Scenic

Recreation Area Advisory Council. The

Advisory Council is comprised of

thirteen members representing state,

county and city governments, and

representatives of various organizations,

which include mining industry,

environmental organizations, inholders

in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area,

economic development, Indian tribes,

adjacent landowners and recreation

interests. The council provides advice to

the Secretary of Agriculture on

preparation of a comprehensive Opal

Creek Management Plan for the SRA,

and consults on a periodic and regular

basis on the management of the area.

The tentative agenda will include

refining issue statements and describing

the desired future condition of the SRA.

The public comment period is

tentatively scheduled to begin at 8:00

p.m. Time allotted for individual

presentations will be limited to 3

minutes. Written comments are

encouraged, particularly if the material

cannot be presented within the time

limits of the comment period. Written

comments may be submitted prior to the

January 22 meeting by sending them to

Designated Federal Official Stephanie

Phillips at the address given below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

more information regarding this

meeting, contact Designated Federal

Official Stephanie Phillips; Williamette

National Forest, Detroit Ranger District,

HC 73 Box 320, Mill City, OR 97360;

(503) 854–3366.

Dated: December 4, 2000.

Darrel Kenops,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 00–31394 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Utilities Service

Notice of Availability of a

Programmatic Environmental

Assessment

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a

programmatic environmental

assessment.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), has

prepared a programmatic level analysis

of certain environmental effects of

combustion turbines utilized for electric

utility applications and offers guidance

on § 1794.15 of its Environmental

Policies and Procedures (7 CFR Part

1794).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence R. Wolfe, Engineering and

Environmental Staff, Rural Utilities

Service, Stop 1571, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–

1571, telephone (202) 720–1784. The Email address is: lwolfe@rus.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

programmatic analysis, in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA), is designed to reconcile

RUS procedural requirements for

environmental analysis with the

emerging needs of a deregulating

electric utility industry. Increasing

demand for electricity combined with a

lack of new generation and retirement of

obsolete plants has produced acute

shortages and price spikes in some areas

of the country.

To better manage power supply needs

and to prudently hedge their exposure

to power market risks, RUS generation

and transmission (G&T) borrowers and

others have turned to combustion

turbine (CT) technology. Technological

advances during the 1990s produced

significant improvements to economic

and operational efficiencies of CTs.

Nearly 90 percent of new electricity

generating capacity between 1997 and

2020 is projected to be combustion

turbine technology fueled by natural gas

or both oil and gas.

In contrast to base load generating

plants, construction and installation of

CT plants typically have much shorter

lead times (18–36 months) and generally

cost much less. Rather than being

custom constructed on site, CTs are

assembled in a factory, delivered to the

site substantially complete, and then are

installed. CTs are not designed to be

operated continuously, but rather, to

meet peak load requirements. Thus, CT

emissions are more infrequent and

generally lower than base load facilities

that are designed to run continuously.

Unlike custom built generating

resources, CTs are ‘‘off-the-shelf’’

products that are essentially identical in

the details of acquisition, installation

and operation at any given power rating.

These common characteristics lend

themselves to a common, i.e.,

programmatic assessment of many of the

environmental effects associated with

such power plants. These common

characteristics and range of sizes also

make it easier for power suppliers to

match their needs more closely as CT

modules can be added incrementally.

The environmental effects of the

installation of a CT on a particular site

are, of course, site specific and often

unique. The evaluation and resolution

of those issues often determine the

ultimate siting of the CT.

It is common for a power supplier to

order a CT and make progress payments

during its fabrication long before the site

for the CT has been selected or even

identified. This is partially explained by

the fact that power suppliers often have

alternative sites on which to install the

CT in the event that an environmental

review process for the preferred site

leads to a different outcome. In the

unlikely event that a power supplier is

unable to find any suitable site for a CT

that it has ordered, it may assign or

otherwise liquidate its position rather

than incur significant losses. By

proceeding with the siting process in

parallel with the fabrication of the unit,

the power supplier is able to address the

growing needs for an adequate and

reliable supply of electricity on a more

timely basis than if the power supplier

proceeded sequentially.

In order to assure a reliable and

affordable power supply for rural

America, RUS plans to advance funds to

make progress payments on an

otherwise eligible CT project while the

site selection process for that CT project

is pending. Any funds being requested

for site development work or

installation of the CT would, if

approved, be conditioned upon the

borrower meeting all other

environmental requirements, including

completion of a RUS site specific

environmental review. RUS will not

advance any funds for the site

development or installation of any CT

unless and until RUS has completed its

environmental analysis of the specific

site and determined that such site is

acceptable.

Except for site specific issues, CTs

present a set of common environmental

issues. CTs use similar technology, have

similar environmental impacts, have the

same alternatives and otherwise raise

77344 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Notices

the same environmental review

questions. Except for site-specific

issues, RUS has found performing

individual environmental reviews for

each CT is needlessly redundant and

does not contribute to better

environmental decisionmaking.

Therefore, RUS plans to address

environmental issues common to all

CTs in this programmatic level analysis.

RUS will perform site-specific

environmental review and analyses on

each proposed CT when presented with

proposed siting alternatives. This tiered

approach is practicable, reduces

paperwork and delays and fosters better

decision making (see 7 CFR 1794.16).

Along with programmatic level

environmental analysis, this document

offers guidance to RUS borrowers on the

scope of actions permissible under 7

CFR 1794.15 that they may take pending

completion by RUS of the second

analytical tier, i.e., the site specific

environmental analysis.

This analysis finds that considering

the similar characteristics of most CTs

and the limited reliable and affordable

alternatives presently available for

addressing rural America’s needs for

peaking supplies of electricity, RUS

should tier its environmental analysis of

CTs because it is practicable, reduces

paperwork and delay, and produces

better decision making. This

programmatic analysis considers

common characteristics and

alternatives. RUS intends to consider on

a case-by-case basis as they arise,

whether the installation or operation of

any particular CT on its proposed site

will result in any significant

environmental impacts. In making such

individual determinations, RUS will

consider the findings and requirements

of other governmental entities having

jurisdiction over the siting,

development and operation of the CT

and reserves the right to update this

programmatic analysis to take

additional information into account or

develop particular elements of the

analysis more fully as may be warranted

in individual circumstances. Ordinarily,

however, the analysis contained in this

document will be incorporated either in

its entirety or in part by reference in any

further RUS analysis of particular CT

projects.

In determining which loan applicant

activities may proceed in connection

with CTs before RUS completes the

second tier of its environmental review,

RUS has determined that 7 CFR 1794.15

permits an applicant to take all

appropriate actions necessary to assure

timely acquisition of CTs. Generally,

during this period, applicants will take

actions that do not have an adverse

impact and do not preclude the search

for alternatives, e.g., site acquisition,

executing a purchase contract for a CT,

making manufacturer’s progress

payments, and site planning and design.

As contrasted with site development or

project construction, which may have

adverse environmental consequences,

these purchase, planning and design

activities clearly do not. Nor do the

expenditures for these permissible

activities preclude the search for

alternatives. CTs are fungible, in limited

supply, and have a broad worldwide

market. In the unlikely event that an

applicant can find no environmentally

suitable site on which to locate a CT or

otherwise changes its plans,

commercially reasonable alternatives

exist to effectively ‘‘unwind’’ the

transaction in the case of a CT that has

not yet been installed.

RUS believes that in the event that the

proposed CT project is not approved by

the Administrator, the amount of

unrecoverable losses which an applicant

would consequently absorb would not

jeopardize the Government’s security

interest in existing assets or otherwise

compromise the objectivity of RUS

review. In such an eventuality, RUS

expects that even in a worse case

scenario the applicant would incur only

a modest cancellation charge as the

manufacturer could reasonably be

expected to sell the CT to another

purchaser for a similar price. Given the

current demand for CTs, at least for

some time to come, it appears that a

proactive applicant may be able to

assign its purchase rights or otherwise

transfer its rights in the CT to a third

party and completely avoid losses.

Accordingly, these pre-installation

expenditures will not compromise RUS

objectivity.

In a deregulated electricity market,

failure to take prudent steps to acquire

reasonably priced, reliable power

supply resources in a timely manner

exposes RUS borrowers, Rural

Electrification Act (RE Act)

beneficiaries, and RUS to unacceptably

high levels of market risk and thereby

frustrates the objectives of the RE Act.

This tiered analysis and regulation

interpretation is fully consistent with

NEPA and eliminates unnecessary

procedural delays, costs and risks.

This programmatic environmental

assessment can be reviewed at the

headquarters of RUS at the address

provided above. The document is also

available for public inspection on the

RUS website at: www.usda.gov/rus/

water/ees/ea.htm.

Questions and comments should be

sent to RUS at the address provided.

RUS will accept questions and

comments on its proposed action for at

least 30 days from the date of

publication of this notice. RUS will take

no final action related to this proposal

until after notification of that action is

published in the Federal Register.

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Lawrence R. Wolfe,

Acting Director, Engineering and

Environmental Staff.

[FR Doc. 00–31179 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

International Import Certificate

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden, invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before February 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental

Clearance Officer, Department of

Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington

DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection

instrument(s) and instructions should

be directed to Dawnielle Battle,

Department of Commerce, Room 6883,

14th & Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC, 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Abstract

The United States and several other

countries have undertaken to increase

the effectiveness of their respective

controls over international trade in

strategic commodities by means of an

Import Certificate procedure. For the

U.S. importer, this procedure provides

that, where required by the exporting

country with respect to a specific

transaction, the importer certifies to the

U.S. Government that he/she will

import specific commodities into the

United States and will not reexport such

commodities except in accordance with

the export control regulations of the