11174 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices

Western Area Power Administration

Final Power Allocations of the Post2000 Resource Pool—Pick-Sloan

Missouri Basin Program, Eastern

Division

AGENCY: Western Area Power

Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of final power

allocations.

SUMMARY: Western Area Power

Administration (Western), a Federal

power marketing agency of the

Department of Energy, hereby

announces its Post-2000 Resource Pool

Power Allocations to fulfill the

requirements of Subpart C–Power

Marketing Initiative of the Energy

Planning and Management Program

Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 905. The Post2000 Resource Pool Allocations are

Western’s implementation of Subpart C–

Power Marketing Initiative of the Energy

Planning and Management Program

Final Rule for the Pick-Sloan Missouri

Basin Program, Eastern Division.

Western’s proposed allocations were

initially published in the Federal

Register August 30, 1996, and a

clarification and response to comments

was published in the Federal Register

December 3, 1996. The formal comment

period on the proposed allocations

ended on January 6, 1997, and a

discussion of comments received

pertaining to the proposed allocations is

included in this notice. After

consideration of all of the comments,

Western has decided to finalize the

proposed allocations to new utility and

nonutility customers as announced on

August 30, 1996, and to finalize the

proposed allocations to Native

American tribes based on the levelized

methodology adjusted to address the

relatively small indirect benefits

provided to the Rosebud Sioux Tribe by

Rosebud Electric Cooperative.

DATES: The Post 2000 Resource Pool

Final Power Allocations, as based on the

Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—

Eastern Division marketable resource at

this time, will become effective April

10, 1997, and will remain in effect until

December 31, 2020. Electric service

contracts for the sale of power allocated

in this notice will be effective when

signed by both the customer and

Western. Allottees will have six months

to execute a contract with Western after

the initial offer of a draft contract,

unless otherwise agreed in writing by

Western. Contracts entered into under

the Post-2000 Resource Pool Allocation

Procedures shall provide for Western to

furnish the benefits of firm electric

service effective from January 1, 2001,

through December 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Information regarding the

Post-2000 Resource Pool Allocations,

including comments, letters, and other

supporting documents made or kept by

Western for the purpose of developing

the final allocations, are available for

public inspection and copying at the

Upper Great Plains Customer Service

Regional Office, Western Area Power

Administration, located at 2900 4th

Avenue North, Billings, Montana 59101.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western

published a notice of proposed

allocations in the Federal Register on

August 30, 1996, at 61 FR 45957 to

implement Subpart C–Power Marketing

Initiative of the Energy Planning and

Management Program Final Rule, 10

CFR part 905. The Energy Planning and

Management Program (Program), which

was developed in part to implement

section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of

1992, became effective on November 20,

1995. Subpart C of the Program provides

for the establishment of project-specific

resource pools and the allocation of

power from these pools to new

preference customers. Western’s final

procedures were published in the

Federal Register at 61 FR 41142 on

August 7, 1996. Those procedures, in

conjunction with the Pick-Sloan

Missouri Basin Program—Eastern

Division, Final Post-1985 Marketing

Plan (Post-1985 Marketing Plan) (45 FR

71860, corrected at 45 FR 77509)

established the framework for allocating

power from the resource pool

established for the Pick-Sloan Missouri

Basin Program—Eastern Division (P–

SMBP–ED).

Western held public information and

comment forums on September 18, 19,

and 20, 1996, to accept oral and written

comments on the proposed allocations.

On October 8, 1996, Western published

in the Federal Register, at 61 FR 52788,

a Notice of Time Extension for the

Proposed Allocation which extended

the formal comment period for written

comments from October 7 to October 21,

1996. On December 3, 1996, Western

published in the Federal Register, at 61

FR 64080, a Notice of Clarification,

Response to Comments and Request for

Additional Comments regarding the

levelized method of calculating

proposed allocations for new Native

American customers and proposed an

alternative method. Western held a

public information and comment forum

on December 17, 1996, to accept oral

and written comments regarding the

methodology used to calculate the

proposed allocations for new Native

American customers. The comment

period for this Federal Register notice

ended January 6, 1997.

The August 30, 1996, Federal Register

notice proposed a levelized

methodology for determining Native

American allocations (Method One).

Under Method One Western levelized

total Federal hydropower benefits to be

received by each tribe. The proposed

allocations under Method One (the

direct benefit to each tribe) were

determined by taking the total Federal

hydropower benefit (63.323 percent in

the summer and 56.869 percent in the

winter) to be received by each tribe less

the amount of indirect benefit each tribe

receives through its current power

supplier(s). As a result of comments

received during the comment period for

61 FR 45957, Western published an

alternative second method (Method

Two) in the Federal Register on

December 3, 1996, to calculate the

proposed tribal allocations (direct

benefit). Under Method Two the tribal

allocations were determined by

prorating the total amount of the

resource pool available to the tribes

based on each tribe’s estimated load.

This Federal Register notice also

republished Method One and requested

comments in support of one of the two

methods.

Western has decided to finalize the

proposed allocations to new utility and

nonutility customers as announced

August 30, 1996, and to finalize the

proposed allocations to Native

American tribes based on Method One

adjusted to address the relatively small

indirect benefits provided to the

Rosebud Sioux Tribe by Rosebud

Electric Cooperative. Final allocations

were determined in the same manner as

Method One except the portion of

indirect benefits received by the

Rosebud Sioux Tribe from the Rosebud

Electric Cooperative were taken out of

the calculation of Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s

indirect benefits. This was done in

response to several comments that the

Rosebud Electric Cooperative supplies

an insignificant portion of the Rosebud

Sioux Tribe’s electrical requirements.

Under Method One, as adjusted,

Western levelized total Federal

hydropower benefits received by each

tribe. The proposed allocations under

adjusted Method One (the direct benefit

to each tribe) were determined by taking

the total Federal hydropower benefit

(61.6065 percent in the summer and

55.3396 percent in the winter) to be
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices 11175

received by each tribe less the amount

of indirect benefit each tribe receives

through its current power supplier(s).

The Post-2000 Resource Pool

Allocations set forth in this Federal

Register notice identify the utility and

nonutility customers and Native

American tribes to which Western

intends to allocate power to implement

Subpart C of the Power Marketing

Initiative of the Energy Planning and

Management Program Final Rule in the

P–SMBP–ED.

Response to Customer Comments

Regarding Post-2000 Resource Pool

Allocations

I. General Comments

Comment: Western received requests

for extension of the comment period for

the August 30, 1996, Federal Register

notice.

Response: 61 FR 52788 published

October 8, 1996, extended the deadline

for submittal of comments until October

21, 1996. Also, 61 FR 64080 published

December 3, 1996, clarified, responded

to comments, and requested additional

comments regarding the levelized

method of calculating proposed

allocations for new Native American

customers and proposed an alternative

method. Comments were accepted

regarding this notice until January 6,

1997.

Comment: Western received requests

to reconsider the application of

Horsecreek Irrigation Cooperative.

Horsecreek Irrigation Cooperative does

not directly or indirectly receive

electrical power from McKenzie Electric

Cooperative, Inc. Horsecreek Irrigation

Cooperative was formed solely for the

purpose of obtaining Western power

and does not yet receive any power

whatsoever from McKenzie Electric

Cooperative, Inc. Horsecreek Irrigation

Cooperative is not active and will not be

active unless and until Western power

is available.

Response: Because Horsecreek

Irrigation Cooperative is inactive,

Western has declared them ineligible

based on the Post-2000 Resource Pool

Allocation Procedures General

Eligibility Criteria sections III.A, III.E

and III.I.

Comment: Western inappropriately

evaluated Horsecreek Irrigation

Cooperatives’s meeting of the 100 kW

eligibility criteria. The use of the

eligibility criteria that the allocations be

based on loads experienced in the 1994

summer season and the 1994–95 winter

season does not reflect the actual

growing seasons, is misguided, and

favors other users over agricultural

users, who were the primary users for

which Pick-Sloan power was intended

to benefit.

Response: The Post-1985 Marketing

Plan established the criterion of a

minimum allocation to determine

eligibility for power allocations. The

Post-1985 Marketing Plan minimum

allocation criteria was modified as set

forth in the Final Procedures. The final

allocations of power for new utility and

nonutility customers were calculated

using Post-1985 Marketing Plan criteria.

Under the Post-1985 Marketing Plan

criteria, the summer allocations are

24.84413 percent of total summer load

and the winter allocations are 35.98853

percent of total winter load. The final

allocation procedures as published at 61

FR 41142 stipulated these percentages

would be applied to the 1994 summer

and 1994–95 winter season loads for

utility and nonutility customers. Based

on information Horsecreek Irrigation

Cooperative supplied in their Applicant

Profile Data and our calculation of that

data, Western again determined

Horsecreek Irrigation Cooperative

ineligible under the General Eligibility

Criteria sections III.A, III.E and III.I.

Comment: The contract with Western

for the existing allocation is contracted

with the utility. Tribes choosing to form

a separate utility cannot access the

allocation already contracted. There is a

need for discussion of this subject for an

equitable resolution. In absence of a

resolution, Western is making it

extremely difficult for tribes to form

utilities and in some cases, beneficial to

the effected utilities that currently

provide service.

Response: The intent of the Program

was to provide the benefits of Federal

hydropower allocations directly to

individual tribes. Western does not

believe these allocations have created

additional burdens for Native American

tribes in forming a separate utility.

Those tribes with smaller allocations

under either method may find it more

costly to form a separate utility simply

because of the cost associated with

supplemental power due to the loss of

their indirect benefits.

Comment: Several applicants

requested that their applications be

given reconsideration. Applicants stated

that their rates were not adjusted when

the allotment was received by the

supplier for power and therefore have

not received benefits, directly or

indirectly, of Western power.

Response: Western reviewed all

applications that were requested to be

reconsidered. That review did not find

previous applicants declared ineligible

to be eligible. Whether or not rates were

adjusted for any applicant currently

receiving benefit, directly or indirectly,

from a current P-SMBP-ED firm power

allocation is outside of the scope of this

process.

Comment: One commenter stated that

Minot State University’s application

was not considered because they are

currently receiving benefits directly or

indirectly and requested an explanation.

Response: Our General Eligibility

Criteria in the Post-2000 Resource Pool

Allocation Procedures states, ‘‘Qualified

utility and nonutility applicants must

not be currently receiving benefits,

directly or indirectly, from a current PSMBP-ED firm power allocation.

Qualified Native American applicants

are not subject to this requirement.’’ We

have determined that if an entity such

as Minot State University is

administered by a State which is

receiving benefits, then they are also

receiving the benefits of Federal power

and are therefore, ineligible.

Comment: Western received several

comments questioning whether Western

will review the application and change

their decision if a city/municipality

should achieve utility status by the

deadline stated in the Federal Register.

Response: It was the responsibility of

the city/municipality to provide

necessary documentation for Western to

determine if the city/municipality met

the General Eligibility Criteria. Based

upon the information submitted during

the application period in their applicant

profile data, Western has determined

that those entities would not be able to

achieve utility status in the given time

frame.

Comment: If Western should decide to

make additional allocations available in

the years 2006 and 2011, a Federal

Register notice should be published two

years in advance to allow interested

cities a chance to obtain utility status.

Another commenter requested Western

provide applicants ample opportunity

prior to the years 2006 and 2011 to

develop their own electrical utility.

Response: If additional allocations are

made, they shall be made in accordance

with the Program. Specifically, 10 CFR

905.35(c) requires entities that desire to

purchase power from Western for resale

to consumers obtain utility status 3

years prior to the subsequent resource

pool. Notice of these requirements were

published in a final rule November 20,

1995. The implementation of the

Program does not prevent an entity from

obtaining utility status at any given

time. These allocations and procedures

do not in any way affect Western’s

obligations or flexibility in regards to

future resource pools as stipulated in

the Program.

Comment: Any allocations of power

to the tribes need to recognize and
11176 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices

acknowledge that tribes were denied

access to power in all previous

allocations. Another questioned how

individual tribal member land owners

whose land is in trust, as is the tribes,

would be able to benefit from the

Western allocation program, if the

initial motivation for including tribes in

the Western allocation process was due

to impacts to Indian lands as a result of

hydroelectric development on the

Missouri. Two commenters stated they

would like to remind Western that

allocations of power in no way

abrogates any outstanding treaty

obligations owed to their tribe nor does

it impact the tribe’s water rights but is

merely the result of tribes achieving

‘‘Preference Power Customer’’ status.

Another commented that the fair share

of the total resource pool allocated to

the tribes was determined by Western to

reflect a portion of the reservation

electrical needs by the year 2000 and to

reflect the fact that the tribes had been

denied access to Western power in

previous allocations.

Response: Western has continued to

take steps towards assisting Native

Americans in meeting their needs for

cost-based hydropower. Western has

always considered tribes to be

preference entities, but has not

historically allocated power to Native

Americans in the absence of utility

status, eligible irrigation load, or special

legislation enacted by Congress. In the

past, the benefits of hydropower have

been realized by Native Americans

through allocations to cooperatives that

serve tribal load. The Program changed

Western’s policy regarding Native

Americans and utility status. Therefore,

allocations will now be made directly to

the tribes. Western agrees that these

allocations do not impact tribal water

rights or treaty obligations.

Comment: Western received several

comments that Western did not follow

the Final Power Allocation Procedures

of the Post-2000 Resource Pool as

published in the Federal Register on

August 7, 1996. Specifically, the August

7, 1996, Final Procedures, Section III,

Paragraph I states, ‘‘The minimum

allocation shall be 100 kilowatts (kW).’’

The Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe had

a proposed winter season allocation of

only 20 kW under Method One. This

allocation is lower than the minimum

allocation in the Final Power Allocation

Procedures .

Response: The Final Procedures

incorporate the Post-1985 Marketing

Plan criterion of a minimum allocation

in establishing these allocations. The

Post-1985 Marketing Plan established

the criterion that eligibility for power

allocations was based on an annual

basis and not a seasonal basis. It was

never the intent of the Post-1985

Marketing Plan or the Post-2000

allocation process to infer that all

seasonal allocations would be a

minimum of 100 kW. An applicant

meets this criterion as long as one

season’s proposed allocation meets the

minimum allocation of 100 kW.

Therefore, in this case, it is possible to

receive a winter allocation under the

100 kW minimum as long as the

summer season is 100 kW or larger. It

should be noted that Western

disqualified several utility and

nonutility applicants on the basis that

both their winter and summer season

proposed allocations would be below

the 100 kW minimum.

Comment: One commenter expressed

concern that Western decided to

allocate the remainder to the tribes and

actually increase the tribes’’ share of the

resource pool from 75 percent to about

80 percent. They asked that Western

look at the rules that were established

and see if a greater percentage of people

could benefit from low cost hydropower

by changing some of the rules. Also,

they stated that a small part of the 25

percent of the resource pool originally

designated for the new utility and

nonutility customers was transferred to

the Native American customers. Again

they requested Western review this

procedure with regard to allocating that

small part to either new customers who

have not yet formed a ‘‘public power

agency’’ or to entities that are preference

customers.

Response: Western was obligated to

apply the Post-2000 Resource Pool

Allocation Procedures to all applicants.

This process is designed to allocate the

4 percent as set forth by the Program.

Two future 1 percent resource pools

were also identified as part of the

Program and allocations from these

future resource pools will be dealt with

in future public processes.

Comment: If the ‘‘preference power’’

method of calculations is used, the

tribes should be compensated $10,000

each and Mni Sose $100,000 to cover

the entire cost for their 3-year effort.

Response: This comment is outside of

this process. Western does not have

authority to compensate an entity for

efforts in this process.

Comment: The Federal government,

Department of Energy, Bureau of

Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers,

Department of Interior, the Bureau of

Indian Affairs, and Western, should

collaborate to assure that tribes be

allowed to develop and operate their

own power utilities. Language should be

amended to give tribes the ability to

form utilities as opposed to keeping the

oppressive policies ongoing.

Response: The implementation of the

Program does not prevent an entity from

obtaining utility status.

Comment: One commenter protested

the allocations process and demanded

compensation for the use of water river

rights for the Oglalas, other Sioux tribes,

and Missouri River tribes.

Response: This comment is outside of

this process. Western does not have

authority to compensate an entity for

the use of water rights.

Comment: Three commenters

requested Western recalculate the

proposed allocations for the Native

American tribes using only the criteria

in the final allocation procedures (the

estimated loads).

Response: Western used the Post-2000

Resource Pool Allocation Procedures

criteria including the estimated loads in

the tribal applications in determining

the final allocations for qualified Native

American tribes.

Comment: Allocations were arranged

in such a way as to discourage a tribe

from starting its own utility because the

amount allocated was so small.

Response: Allocations were based on

the 4 percent resource pool which was

derived from the Program. Western’s

final procedures were published in the

Federal Register at 61 FR 41142. Those

procedures, in conjunction with the

Post-1985 Marketing Plan, established

the framework for allocating power from

the resource pool, are final, and cannot

be changed in this process.

Comment: Western needs to increase

the size of the resource pool. One option

would be to revamp current facilities to

increase generation and reserve surplus

for tribes. Another commented that by

offering up a resource pool which is

woefully inadequate to address the

needs of the tribes Western has forced

the tribes to fight with each other.

Another commented that the tribes now

have to place the interest of their own

tribes in the forefront and decide which

of the two alternatives is best for their

tribe. This may lead to possible

dissension among the tribes which may

be the goal Western is attempting to

achieve. Additionally, two commenters

stated that the fair share determined by

Western does not reflect the argument

made by the tribes that the size of the

resource pool and the tribal allocation

should have been substantially greater.

Response: The 4 percent resource

pool was derived from the Program, and

therefore the size of the pool is outside

this process. This process is designed to

allocate the 4 percent resource pool as

set forth by the Program. It was the

intent of Western to provide benefits
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices 11177

from the resource pool to all eligible

entities. Two future 1 percent resource

pools were also identified as part of the

Program and allocations from these

future resource pools will be dealt with

in future public processes.

Comment: Outside purchases are

needed to supplement the proposed

Post-2000 allocation and accommodate

a larger allocation to the tribes. Such

purchases would not be a detriment to

any existing customer of Western. PickSloan purchases are relatively small in

contrast to other Western areas.

Response: This comment is outside of

this public process. The Final

Allocation Procedures and Final

Allocations are a direct result of the

Program. The Program does not provide

for the acquisition of additional outside

resources to supplement the 4 percent

resource pool.

Comment: Using the power suppliers’

existing hydro allocations to provide

allocations to tribes implies that the

tribes may have rights to part of the

power suppliers current allocation.

Another commented that using the

power suppliers’ existing hydro

allocation to provide allocations to the

tribes implies that the Flandreau Santee

Sioux may have rights to part of the City

of Flandreau’s current allocation. This is

a major concern to the City of Flandreau

since the tribe was not receiving any

power when the City of Flandreau

received their allocation in 1977.

Response: The intent of the Program

was to provide benefits of Federal

hydropower allocations directly to

qualified Native American tribes. This is

represented in the final allocations. The

use of existing hydro allocations in the

calculation method does not imply that

the tribes have rights to any part of these

allocations. Further, it does not change

the contractual commitments between

Western and the existing customers.

Contractual commitments between

Western and the existing customers are

outside of this public process.

Comments: The proposed allocations

for the Native American tribes are based

on their estimated population, both on

and off the reservations, with the Ponca

Tribe of Nebraska having no land base.

The commenter believes the allocations

should be based on the estimated

electrical load on the reservations. The

proposed allocation from the estimated

loads based on population projections,

result in allocations larger than some

tribes can utilize. Two commenters

stated that the proposed allocations

from the estimated loads result in

allocations larger than some tribes can

currently utilize. Another commented

that allocations are more favorable to

tribes without service from an existing

Western customer and less favorable to

tribes with service from an existing

Western customer. Another commented

that the amount of the Crow Tribe

allocation derived from Method Two,

plus the tribe’s power supplier’s

existing allocation, may be larger than

the entire load of the Crow Tribe.

Finally, one commented that Method

Two would provide the Crow Creek

Tribe more than 100 percent of their

load.

Response: Western does not agree

with these comments and our analysis

does not support this conclusion.

Allocations for Native American tribes

were based on estimated loads for the

year 2000. In the absence of reliable

load data for Native American tribes,

population data was used in an effort to

estimate Native Americans loads in the

year 2000. In this notice, Western has

levelized the total Federal hydropower

benefits (61.6065 percent in the summer

and 55.3396 percent in the winter) to be

received by each tribe.

Comment: It should be clearly defined

in the contracts that the allocations go

to the tribes themselves or beneficiaries

of the tribes.

Response: Contracts for the Post-2000

Resource Pool allocations will be

between Western and the allottee.

Comment: One commenter asked if

the original low cost power issued to the

tribes will still be low cost after all the

transmission costs are considered.

Another commented that there should

be no transmission costs associated with

distribution of power to tribes in the

Missouri River Basin.

Response: Western will assist the

allottee in obtaining third-party

transmission arrangements for delivery

of firm power. To the extent that

utilities are involved in these

arrangements, Western will work with

those entities. However, as stated in the

Final Procedures, it is the ultimate

responsibility of the allottee to obtain its

own delivery arrangements and to pay

the associated costs.

Comment: Western should have

allowed tribal input in developing the

allocation process.

Response: Tribal input, as well as

input from other entities, has been

solicited in conjunction with the public

process comment period that was

initiated January 29, 1996, and

concluded January 6, 1997. During that

time frame seven informational forums

and seven comment forums were held

and ongoing opportunities to provide

written comments were allowed at each

step of the process.

Comment: Two comments stated that

the tribes should directly receive the

entire allocation to service the tribal

load.

Response: The intent of the Program

was to provide the benefits of Federal

hydropower allocations directly to

individual tribes. The entire allocations

contained in this notice will be made

directly to the tribes. Any indirect

benefits recognized in the calculation

method were utilized only to levelize

total benefits across the Region at the

time of allocation with no intent to

create any commitment whatsoever, to

transfer these benefits to the tribes. Any

indirect benefits received by the tribes

are contractual commitments between

Western and the existing customers and

are outside of this public process.

Comment: The allocation as proposed

(under Method One) penalizes the Crow

Tribe as a recipient of Federal power

and subjects the Crow Tribe to antiIndian policies by an existing power

supplier.

Response: It is not the intent of the

Program to penalize any recipient of

Federal power. Under any method of

direct allocation, which does not result

in full requirements being met by P–

SMBP–ED, the tribe will be subject to

existing power supplier policies to the

extent they desire the existing power

supplier to continue to supply the

tribe’s remaining power needs.

Comment: Revenues from Western

could be more helpful to tribes by

providing set-aside monies, grants, and

startup monies. This is the prime time

for a tribe to initially plan for utility

status, if it wants to.

Response: This comment is outside of

this process. Western does not have the

authority to provide revenues to the

tribes for set-aside monies, grants or

startup monies through this allocation

process.

Comment: Was the motivation for the

provisions in the 1992 Energy Policy

Act to include Indian tribes in Western’s

allocation planning? Did tribes or

representatives from tribes provide

testimony, initially under the Energy

Policy Act to include benefit provisions

to tribal governments?

Response: These comments are

outside of this process.

Comment: Did tribes use the negative

impacts to Indian lands from

hydroelectric development on the

Missouri River as justification to

include tribes as beneficiaries of

Western allocations?

Response: This comment is outside of

this process.

Comment: If Western would refer the

individual land owner back to the tribe,

would Western be predisposed to assist

and advocate for individual land

owners, directly impacted by
11178 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices

hydroelectric development activities, in

respect to energy allocations, either

through low or no cost energy benefits

after the year 2001?

Response: Western intends to provide

benefits directly to Native American

tribes beginning in 2001 and will work

with the tribes to assure receipt of those

benefits.

Comment: There is not a clear enough

definition as to who a qualified

allocation beneficiary can be outside of

a reservation boundary.

Response: Off-reservation use of

Native American tribe allocations under

certain circumstances as determined by

Western was allowed for in 60 FR

54151. The circumstances under which

off-reservation use of a Native American

tribe allocation will be allowed will be

determined by Western on a case-bycase basis during the contract

negotiation process.

Comment: The allocation should be

made to the tribe and to the utility.

Response: The intent of the Program

was to provide the benefits of Federal

hydropower allocations directly to

individual tribes. This principal is

consistent with how Western treats

existing customers. Western does not

feel that the goal of the Program would

be served by jointly allocating Native

American allocations to utilities and

tribes.

Comment: The very concept of the

allocation/credit has caused concern

among the cooperative membership and

an increase to a nonjustifiable higher

level will enhance divisiveness and ill

feelings.

Response: This situation does exist

among some of Western’s long term firm

power customers who have a different

blend of low-cost hydropower and

supplemental power. This comment is

outside of this process.

Comment: As new preference

customers, Native Americans should

receive the benefit of the same

principles Western has applied in

previous marketing plans.

Response: Western’s final procedures

were published in the Federal Register

at 61 FR 41142. Those procedures, in

conjunction with the Post-1985

Marketing Plan, established the

framework for allocating power from the

resource pool. The current process has

incorporated principles from prior

marketing plans as well as establishing

that the new customers will be bound

by similar general contract principles as

existing customers.

Comment: To revisit the Native

American allocation methodology at

this late date is counterproductive to

expeditious implementation of this

program.

Response: This comment was directed

at the December 3, 1996, Federal

Register notice, which proposed an

alternate second method to calculate the

proposed tribal allocations. Based upon

input received during the public

process, Western felt it appropriate to

propose an alternate Native American

allocation methodology and to extend

the comment period to determine power

allocations to assure the intent of the

Program is satisfied.

Comment: It is important that Western

directly involve the Sisseton-Wahpeton

Sioux Tribe, and the other Missouri

River basin tribes in all future resource

planning and allocations. Mni Sose

Intertribal Water Rights Coalition, Inc.

will also continue to be an active

representative of these tribes. Also, one

commenter stated that comments

submitted pursuant to this notice

should not be considered the final

comments of their Tribe/Nation. The

Crow Tribe Public Utility Commission

will continue to review and report on

the various aspects of Energy, Electrical

Power and ancillary services. Another

commented that Western, along with the

rest of the Federal Government, has an

enduring and continuing trust

responsibility for the tribes in the

Missouri River Basin.

Response: Western supports the

Department of Energy’s American

Indian policy which stresses the need

for a government-to-government, trustbased relationship. Western intends to

continue its practice of consultation

with tribal governments so that tribal

rights and concerns are considered prior

to any actions being taken that effect the

tribes.

Comment: The delivery of Federal

hydropower to the tribes should be

made in such a way that the benefit of

the allocation is realized by the end

user.

Response: Contracts for power of the

Post-2000 Resource Pool will be

between Western and the allottee.

Comment: One commenter expressed

the desire for Western to come to the

Standing Rock Reservation to present

the contracts in negotiating with

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to honor the

government-to-government relationship,

because it is taken very seriously at

Standing Rock Reservation.

Response: Entering into contractual

arrangements with the various entities is

the next step of this process. However,

this will not begin until the final

allocation process has been completed.

Comment: The allocation should be

made in the form of energy and not a

credit.

Response: Western agrees that

allocations in the form of energy is one

viable method of delivering the benefits

of Federal hydropower to Native

American tribes. However, flexibility

must be retained in the delivery of such

benefits in order to fit a diverse group

of Native American tribes and power

suppliers. The method for delivering the

benefits of Federal hydropower to the

tribes will be determined during the

contract negotiation process.

B. Methodology Comments

• Western departed from the Mni

Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition,

Inc. method of allocation without

consultation with the tribes and created

inequities.

• Western ignored the allocation

formula which the tribes agreed upon

and poured considerable resources into

preparing.

• Two commenters mentioned the

plan put forth by Mni Sose Intertribal

Water Rights Coalition, Inc. must be

acknowledged and used.

• The proposed allocation to the Pine

Ridge Tribe is 40 percent greater than

what Mni Sose Intertribal Water Rights

Coalition, Inc. estimated as their current

requirements.

• Current use figures were often

unavailable because the five companies

that currently serve the Lake Traverse

Reservation were not totally cooperative

in providing data.

• The allocation process is sorely

lacking in consideration of the tribe’s

needs and wants and the Yankton Sioux

Tribe is not going to indicate a

preference for either allocation method.

• The differences between the

proposed methods of allocation may be

perceived to instigate confrontations

among or between various tribes, but the

ultimate concern of the Native

American tribes/Nations is to improve

and expand electric goods and services

available to improve living conditions

and address conditions on many

‘‘Indian Reservations’’ within and

throughout the native life sustaining

regions of the Upper Missouri River

region and beyond.

• Several commented that Section 3,

Paragraph D of the General Allocation

Criteria, states, ‘‘Allocations made to

Native American Tribes will be based

on estimated load developed by the

Native American tribes. Inconsistent

estimates will be adjusted by Western

during the allocation process.’’ Under

Method One, ‘‘Proposed Allocations’’

were not only based on the estimated

load developed by the Native

Americans, they were adjusted by the

estimated current service the Native

Americans were already receiving from

their power suppliers. The so called

‘‘levelizing’’ of benefits was not part of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices 11179

the General Allocation Criteria in the

Final Procedures. Also, under this

method, the Flandreau Tribe will lose 4

percent or 53 kW in the year 2000. After

2000 the tribe will have a net loss of 33

kW.

• Several commenters expressed

concern that the average current

Western service to the Rosebud Sioux

Reservation, as published in the Federal

Register, is not correct. Ninety-nine

percent of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s

load is served by LaCreek-Electric

Cooperative, Inc. and Cherry-Todd

Electric Cooperative, Inc., both members

of Rushmore Electric Power

Cooperative. The small portion of

Rosebud Electric Power Cooperative’s

service with a higher allocation should

be ignored for this calculation in order

to make the balance correct in how

much the tribe should get. Take

Rosebud Electric Cooperative out of the

formula and the allocation would be fair

and correct.

• It is important to the members of

Hot Springs Rural Electric Association,

Inc. that the precedent set in the P–

SMBP–ED be a fair and equitable

allocation of the Resource Pool. In the

near future, Western will begin to

allocate the Resource Pool in the Pick

Sloan Missouri Basin, Western Division,

and we anticipate similar action in the

Colorado River Storage Project.

• The amount of allocation derived

from the use of Method One more

clearly represents a fair allocation to the

Crow Tribe.

• Several commenters strongly

encourage Western to apply the

levelized method (Method One) of

calculating proposed allocations to

Native American customers. The

support is based on the principle of

applying equity among tribal members.

These comments suggest that Method

Two is not consistent with the principle

of equity. Method Two offers greater

benefits to some at the expense of

others. Unless existing Federal bulk

power supply available through current

power suppliers is taken into account as

part of the final allocations, variations

in the amount of Federal power

available among tribal interests will

vary and lead to further retail rate

disparities.

To increase the allocation to Method

Two levels does not make sense.

• We support ‘‘Method One’’ as fair

and equitable to all Native Americans

and current electric utility providers.

Neither they nor its member systems

serve the region defined in the Federal

Register notice but think its important

to comment. They anticipate similar

action in the Colorado River Storage

Project and it is very important to them

and its member systems that the

precedent set in the P–SMBP–ED be fair

and equitable. Also, they submitted

recommendations because expenses for

the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program

are shared over both divisions. The

alternative method does not equitably

distribute the benefits of the resource

pool or take into account benefits for

Native Americans already received

through the current electric utility.

• If Western utilizes ‘‘Method Two’’,

the Turtle Mountain band of Chippewa

Indians would suffer a 27 percent

reduction. Tribes which are currently

receiving much higher benefits, will

receive the much higher allocation

which will result in a greater disparity

among the tribes.

• Method One is considered

inequitable for the reason that tribes

receiving Western power through the

existing rural electrical cooperatives are

more likely to fall in the category of the

Crow Creek Sioux Indian Reservation

and are not likely to benefit from the

current contractual arrangements

between the rural electrical cooperatives

and Western.

• We request Western use Method

Two in calculating the proposed

allocations for new Native American

customers. The comment suggested that

Method Two not only follows the

criteria in the final procedures, it also

appears to treat all tribes on a more

equitable and fair basis.

• Several commenters recommended

Method Two for new Native American

customers. The ‘‘second’’ method

presented by Western more adequately

addresses the tribal needs and demands

for electrical energy to improve and

expand allocations to meet conditions

as discussed and developed during

coordinated meetings among tribes and

Western. Method Two also more fairly

distributes the Native American tribes’

share of the resource pool among the

tribes. Under Method One, some tribes

would receive an allocation greatly in

excess of their load requirements.

• Method One simply does not do

what Western states it is intended to do.

It is not a fair or equitable allocation to

the tribes.

Response: Western used components

of the Mni Sose Water Rights Coalition’s

allocation method in the development

of the Final Allocation Procedures and

the Final Allocations. As stated in the

Post-2000 Resource Pool Allocation

Procedures General Eligibility Criteria

section III.D, ‘‘Allocations made to

Native American tribes will be based on

estimated load developed by the Native

American tribes. Inconsistent estimates

will be adjusted by Western during the

allocation process.’’ Western accepted

loads submitted by the tribes which

were estimated by the Mni Sose

Intertribal Water Rights Coalition, Inc.

Western also accepted loads estimated

using other methods developed by

individual tribes. Western only adjusted

tribal load estimates when an obvious

error was made in the load calculation

or when an unreasonable assumption

was used in the estimation method.

Western provided an additional

opportunity to address and clarify

comments regarding the levelized

method of calculating proposed

allocations for new Native American

customers and proposed an alternative

method. On December 3, 1996, Western

published in the Federal Register, at 61

FR 64080, a Notice of Clarification,

Response to Comments and Request for

Additional Comments. Western held a

public information and comment forum

on December 17, 1996, to accept oral

and written comments regarding the

methodology used to calculate the

proposed allocations for new Native

American customers. The comment

period for this Federal Register notice

ended January 6, 1997. The public

process was a consultation period for

both Native Americans and other

interested entities, and the Mni Sose

Intertribal Water Rights Coalition, Inc.

was involved in that process.

Western recognizes the concern

expressed by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe

regarding the minor contribution of

indirect benefits from the Rosebud

Electric Cooperative in comparison to

the other two co-suppliers and the

inequitable effect it has on the Rosebud

Sioux Tribe’s proposed allocation under

Method One. It was appropriate to

adjust the calculation of Rosebud Sioux

Tribe’s indirect benefit by excluding the

indirect benefits provided by Rosebud

Electric Cooperative. The Rosebud

Sioux Tribe and others raised this issue

in both the information meetings and

the formal comment forums in addition

to sending in written comments. The

adjustment to Method One was a data

issue and not a change in the guidelines

for making the allocations established

through the public process. Western was

not aware of this discrepancy until

information was provided during the

process. As a result of this information,

Western has adjusted Method One as

originally published to address this

concern.

Western reviewed the commenter’s

concern that the Flandreau Tribe could

possibly experience a net loss of

hydropower benefits, as proposed, when

considering their total power supply

(supplemental power and direct

benefits). All long term firm power

customers of Western are subject to the
11180 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices

requirement that they will lose 4

percent of their allocation as provided

by the Program regardless of what

amount is allocated to the tribe.

We recognize the concern of the Crow

Creek Sioux Tribe regarding the

different rate designs of the cooperatives

that serve the reservation and their

effect on the ratepayers. Western has no

control over these rate designs and this

issue is outside of our allocation

process. It should be noted that

although Crow Creek Sioux Tribe’s

comment was directed at Method One,

Method Two does not correct the rate

design problem either.

Western received diverse comments

regarding the proposed Method One and

Method Two. The intent of the Program

was to provide the benefits of Federal

hydropower allocations directly to

individual tribes in an equitable

manner. After reviewing all comments,

Western selected Method One, adjusted

to address the relatively small indirect

benefits provided to the Rosebud Sioux

Tribe by Rosebud Electric Cooperative,

to determine the size of the allocations

based upon the need to meet an

appropriate share of the load for

qualified Native American tribes.

Western used the Post-2000 Resource

Pool Allocation Procedures criteria and

exercised its discretion under

Reclamation Law in shaping the Final

Allocations in response to input during

the public process in allocating this

resource to eligible applicants. Method

One, as adjusted, meets Western’s

Program requirements and the needs of

Western’s new customers, while being

responsive to the comments received in

this process. Western did not receive

comments showing an overwhelming

support for a change to Method Two. In

particular, Mni Sose Intertribal Water

Rights Coalition, Inc., did not indicate a

preference for either Method One or

Method Two.

III. Final Power Allocations

The following final power allocations

are made in accordance with the Final

Procedures published in the Federal

Register at 61 FR 41142 on August 7,

1996. All of the allocations are subject

to the execution of a contract in

accordance with the procedures.

Western announces that Native

American tribes’ share of the resource

pool is 80.64 percent in the summer

season and 78.33 percent in the winter

season. The new utility and nonutility

customers’ share of the resource pool is

19.36 percent in the summer season and

21.67 percent in the winter season.

Allocations to Native American Tribes

The final allocations of power for new

Native American customers and the data

these allocations are based upon are as

follows:

New native American customers

Estimated

demand

kilowatts

Average current western

service

Post-2000 power allocation

Summer Winter Summer

kilowatts

Winter kilowatts

Blackfeet Nation ........................................................................................ 18,600 32 27 5,507 5,271

Cheyenne River Sioux .............................................................................. 13,500 33 29 3,862 3,556

Chippewa Cree-Rocky Boy ...................................................................... 5,000 55 44 330 567

Crow Creek ............................................................................................... 4,100 50 47 476 342

Crow .......................................................................................................... 12,500 55 44 826 1,417

Devils Lake Sioux ..................................................................................... 7,700 22 14 3,050 3,183

Flandreau Santee Sioux ........................................................................... 2,355 55 56 156 0

Fort Belknap Indian Community ............................................................... 6,200 28 22 2,084 2,067

Fort Peck Tribes ....................................................................................... 15,300 34 31 4,224 3,724

Lower Brule Sioux .................................................................................... 3,100 33 29 887 817

Lower Sioux .............................................................................................. 3,750 0 0 2,310 2,075

Northern Cheyenne .................................................................................. 9,400 36 37 2,407 1,724

Oglala Sioux-Pine Ridge .......................................................................... 29,600 28 24 9,948 9,277

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska ........................................................................ 5,100 15 14 2,377 2,108

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska .......................................................................... 2,100 8 6 1,126 1,036

Rosebud Sioux ......................................................................................... 21,300 33 29 6,093 5,610

Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska .............................................................. 1,100 10 8 568 521

Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux ........................................................................ 7,500 40 38 1,620 1,300

Standing Rock Sioux ................................................................................ 12,900 30 29 4,077 3,398

Three Affiliated Tribes .............................................................................. 8,000 30 25 2,529 2,427

Turtle Mountain Chippewa ........................................................................ 18,000 35 18 4,789 6,721

Upper Sioux .............................................................................................. 1,250 42 39 245 204

White Earth Indian Reservation ................................................................ 3,500 6 7 1,946 1,692

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska .................................................................. 3,100 10 8 1,600 1,468

Yankton Sioux ........................................................................................... 5,300 25 24 1,940 1,661

The final allocations for new Native

American customers were calculated

based upon the estimated demand

figures set forth in the table above.

Estimated demand figures were taken

from the Native American tribal

applications. Inconsistent demand

estimates were adjusted by Western.

In order to appropriately distribute

the benefits of Federal hydropower

among the tribes, Western calculated the

proposed power allocations in the table

above in such a manner as to levelize

total Federal hydropower benefits to

each of the Native American tribes. This

results in a total Federal hydropower

benefit of 61.6065 percent in the

summer season and 55.3396 percent in

the winter season to each of the tribes.

To levelize the total Federal

hydropower benefits, the average

current percentage of Western service

that each of the tribes receives through

their current power supplier(s) was

utilized and is as shown in the table

above. For the Blackfeet Nation,

Western used the weighted average of

the current percentage of Western

service for the remaining tribes. The

Blackfeet Nation is served by Glacier

Electric Cooperative, which is a total

requirements customer of Bonneville

Power Administration, therefore the

Blackfeet Nation does not receive

Western service, but does receive the

benefit of Federal hydropower. The
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices 11181

weighted average of the current

percentage of Western service changed

under the adjusted Method One because

Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s average current

percentage of Western service changed.

The final power allocation for each tribe

was determined by multiplying the

difference between the total Federal

hydropower benefit provided to each

tribe (61.6065 percent in the summer

season and 55.3396 percent in the

winter season) and each tribe’s average

current percentage of Western service by

each tribe’s estimated demand.

The final allocations to new Native

American customers set forth in the

table above are based on the P–SMBP–

ED marketable resource available at this

time. If the P–SMBP–ED marketable

resource is adjusted in the future, the

final allocations will be adjusted

accordingly.

B. Allocation to Utility and Nonutility

Customers

The final allocations of power for new

utility and nonutility customers and the

loads these allocations are based upon

are as follows:

Utility and Nonutility Customers

1994 Summer season

load kilowatts

1994–95

Winter season load

kilowatts

Post-2000 power allocation

Summer

kilowatts

Winter kilowatts

Village of Emerson, NE .................................................................................................... 1,454 1,146 361 412

City of Estherville, IA ........................................................................................................ 11,040 7,820 2,743 2,814

City of Randolph, NE ........................................................................................................ 1,861 1,386 462 499

City of Pocahontas, IA ...................................................................................................... 3,980 3,144 989 1,131

City of Madison, NE ......................................................................................................... 10,034 8,759 2,493 3,152

City of South Sioux City, NE1 .......................................................................................... 24,977 21,846 5,000 5,000

City of Sergeant Bluff, IA .................................................................................................. 6,076 3,888 1,510 1,399

City of Wakefield, NE ....................................................................................................... 4,717 3,667 1,172 1,320

City of Fairmont, MN ........................................................................................................ 2,330 2,464 579 887

City of Marathon, IA ......................................................................................................... 520 764 129 275

City of Stanton, ND .......................................................................................................... 656 850 163 306

1 5,000 kW is the maximum allocation allowed under the Final Procedures.

The final allocations of power for new

utility and nonutility customers were

calculated using Post-1985 Marketing

Plan criteria. Under the Post-1985

Marketing Plan criteria, the summer

allocations are 24.84413 percent of total

summer load and the winter allocations

are 35.98853 percent of total winter

load.

The final allocations to new utility

and nonutility customers set forth in the

table above are based on the P–SMBP–

ED marketable resource available at this

time. If the P–SMBP–ED marketable

resource is adjusted in the future, the

final allocations will be adjusted

accordingly.

III. Review Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq. (Act), requires Federal

agencies to perform a regulatory

flexibility analysis if a proposed

regulation is likely to have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Western has

determined that this rulemaking relates

to services offered by Western, and,

therefore, is not a rule within the

purview of the Act.

IV. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520, Western has received approval

from the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for the collection of

customer information in this rule, under

control number 1910–1200.

V. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

Western requested input regarding the

identification of any additional

environmental issues both in the

Federal Register at 61 FR 2817, January

29, 1996, and at the public meetings. No

environmental comments were received

or additional environmental issues

identified. Therefore, Western has

determined that the analysis in the

Program Environmental Impact

Statement is sufficient for this action

and current DOE (10 CFR part 1021)

regulations indicate that no further

National Environmental Policy Act

impact analysis documentation is

required.

VI. Determination Under Executive

Order 12866

DOE has determined this action does

not meet the criteria of Executive Order

12866, 58 FR 51735 and is not a

significant regulatory action. Western

has an exemption from centralized

regulatory review under Executive

Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance

of this notice by Office of Management

and Budget is required.

VII. Review Under Executive Order

12988

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),

imposes on Executive agencies the

general duty to adhere to the following

requirement: (1) Eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity; (2) write

regulations to minimize litigation; and

(3) provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather that a general

standard and promote simplification

and burden reduction. With regard to

the review required by sections 3(a),

sections 3(b) of Executive Order 12988

specifically requires that Executive

agencies make every reasonable effort to

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly

specifies the preemptive effect, if any;

(2) clearly specifies any effect on

existing Federal law or regulation; (3)

provides a clear legal standard for

affected conduct while promoting

simplification and burden reduction; (4)

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)

adequately defines key terms; and (6)

addresses other important issues

affecting clarity and general

draftsmanship under any guidelines

issued by the Attorney General. Section

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires

Executive agencies to review regulations

in light of applicable standards in

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to

determine whether they are met or it is

unreasonable to meet one or more or

them. DOE has completed the required

review and determined that, to the

extent permitted by law, the final

regulations meet the relevant standards

of Executive Order 12988.
11182 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 1997 / Notices

VIII. Congressional Notification

The final regulations published today

are subject to the Congressional

notification requirements of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act 1996. The Office of

Management and Budget has

determined that the final regulations do

not constitute a ‘‘major rule’’ under the

Act (5 USC 801, 804). DOE will report

to Congress on the promulgation of the

final regulations prior to the effective

date set forth at the beginning of this

notice.

Issued at Golden, Colorado, February 28,

1997.

J.M. Shafer,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–5996 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPPTS–140256; FRL–5593–5]

Access to Confidential Business

Information by Hampshire Research

Associates, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its

contractor, Hampshire Research

Associates, Inc. (HRA), of Alexander,

Virginia, for access to information

which has been submitted to EPA under

section 8 of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA). Some of the

information may be claimed or

determined to be confidential business

information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data

submitted to EPA will occur no sooner

than March 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Hazen, Director, Environmental

Assistance Division (7408), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

E–545, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460, (202) 554–1404, TDD: (202) 554–

0551; e-mail: TSCAHotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

contract number 7W–0244–NASA,

contractor HRA, of 1600 Cameron St.,

Alexandria, VA, will assist the Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)

in generating a report that contains data

aggregates and comparisons among

chemicals and chemical groups

collected from the Inventory Update

Reports for 1986, 1990, and 1994.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j),

EPA has determined that under EPA

contract number 7W–0244–NASA, HRA

will require access to CBI submitted to

EPA under section 8 of TSCA to perform

successfully the duties specified under

the contract. HRA personnel will be

given access to information submitted to

EPA under section 8 of TSCA. Some of

the information may be claimed or

determined to be CBI.

In a previous notice published in the

Federal Register of January 19, 1993 (58

FR 4992; FRL–4182–8), under contract

number 68–D2–0064, HRA was

authorized for access to CBI submitted

to EPA under all sections of TSCA.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform

all submitters of information under

section 8 of TSCA that EPA may provide

HRA access to these CBI materials on a

need-to-know basis only. All access to

TSCA CBI under this contract will take

place at EPA Headquarters. Before

access to TSCA CBI is authorized at

HRA, EPA will approve their security

certification statement.

Clearance for access to TSCA CBI

under this contract may continue until

September 30, 1997.

HRA personnel will be required to

sign nondisclosure agreements and will

be briefed on appropriate security

procedures before they are permitted

access to TSCA CBI.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Access to

confidential business information.

Dated: March 3, 1997.

Oscar Morales,

Acting Director, Information Management

Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics.

[FR Doc. 97–6017 Filed 3–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[OPPTS–140255; FRL–5593–4]

Access to Confidential Business

Information by PRC Environmental

Management, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its

contractor, PRC Environmental

Management, Inc. (PRC), of Chicago,

Illinois, access to information which has

been submitted to EPA under all

sections of the Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA). Some of the information

may be claimed or determined to be

confidential business information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data

submitted to EPA will occur no sooner

than March 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Hazen, Director, Environmental

Assistance Division (7408), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.

E–545, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460, (202) 554–1404, TDD: (202) 554–

0551; e-mail: TSCAHotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

contract number 68–W4–0004,

contractor PRC, of 200 East Randolph

Drive, Chicago, IL, will assist the Office

of Waste and Chemicals Management

and Regional Offices RCRA

Enforcement, Permitting and Assistance

Programs in the implementation of

RCRA/TSCA related initiatives. Major

areas of support include permitting

activities, Subtitle D solid waste,

corrective actions and RCRA program

planning.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j),

EPA has determined that under EPA

contract number 68–W4–0004, PRC will

require access to CBI submitted to EPA

under all sections of TSCA to perform

successfully the duties specified under

the contract. PRC personnel will be

given access to information submitted to

EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some

of the information may be claimed or

determined CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform

all submitters of information under all

sections of TSCA that EPA may provide

PRC access to these CBI materials on a

need-to-know basis only. All access to

TSCA CBI under this contract will take

place at PRC’s sites located at 200 East

Randolph Drive, Suite 4700, Chicago,

IL; One Union Square 600 University

St., Suite 800, Seattle, WA; 1 Dallas

Center, 350 North St. Paul St., Suite

2600, Dallas, TX; and 1099 18th St.,

Suite 1960, Denver, Co.

PRC will be authorized access to

TSCA CBI at their facilities under the

EPA TSCA Confidential Business

Information Security Manual. Before

access to TSCA CBI is authorized at

PRC’s sites, EPA will approve PRC’s

security certification statements,

perform the required inspection of its

facilities, and ensure that the facilities

are in compliance with the manual.

Upon completing review of the CBI

materials, PRC will return all transferred

materials to EPA.

Clearance for access to TSCA CBI

under this contract may continue until

December 31, 1998.

PRC personnel will be required to

sign nondisclosure agreements and will

be briefed on appropriate security