71270 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 

Section 612—State Eligibility 

Topic Addressed: Evaluation 

Æ Letter dated September 21, 2005 to 

Texas Commissioner of Education 

Shirley Neeley, regarding steps that the 

Department has taken to address 

educational challenges for displaced 

students resulting from Hurricane 

Katrina and advising the Texas 

Education Agency on how to ensure 

timely completion of evaluations of 

children suspected of having a disability 

in districts enrolling a significant 

number of displaced students. 

Æ Letter dated August 9, 2005 to 

Virgin Islands Educational Consultant 

Eleanor Hirsh, providing an explanation 

regarding new requirements relating to 

(1) pre-referral activities and timeliness 

of referrals for initial evaluation to 

determine eligibility for special 

education and related services; (2) use 

of evaluations conducted under Part C 

of IDEA to determine eligibility under 

Part B of IDEA; and (3) placement 

options for preschool-aged children 

with disabilities. 

Topic Addressed: Maintenance of State 

Financial Support 

Æ Letter dated September 21, 2005 to 

Louisiana Superintendent of Education 

Cecil J. Picard, regarding the steps the 

Department is taking to assist the State 

and school districts in educating 

displaced students as a result of 

Hurricane Katrina and informing the 

State the Department will waive the 

State-level maintenance of effort 

requirement as permitted under section 

612(a)(18)(C) of IDEA. 

Section 613—Local Educational Agency 

Eligibility 

Topic Addressed: Charter Schools 

Æ Letter dated September 13, 2005 to 

Hawaii Department of Education 

Special Education Director Dr. Paul Ban, 

regarding the requirements of Part B of 

IDEA that are applicable to public 

charter schools under Hawaii’s unitary 

school system. 

Section 615—Procedural Safeguards 

Topic Addressed: Student Discipline 

Æ Letter dated July 28, 2005 to 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina 

Commissioner Bill James, regarding 

requirements applicable to disciplining 

students with disabilities. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister/index.html. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.027, Assistance to States for 

Education of Children with Disabilities) 

John H. Hager, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. E5–6578 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

National Nuclear Security 

Administration 

Notice of Intent to Prepare a Site-Wide 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Y–12 National Security Complex 

AGENCY: National Nuclear Security 

Administration, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI). 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), the Council on Environmental 

Quality’s (CEQ) and the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 

CFR Parts 1500–1508 and 10 CFR Part 

1021, respectively), the National 

Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA), an agency within the DOE, 

announces its intent to prepare a SiteWide Environmental Impact Statement 

(SWEIS) for the Y–12 National Security 

Complex (Y–12) located at the junction 

of Bear Creek Road and Scarboro Road 

in Anderson County, Tennessee, near 

the city of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. NNSA 

has determined that one or more of the 

proposals to be evaluated would be a 

major federal action that could 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment; therefore, in 

accordance with the DOE regulations 

implementing NEPA, preparation of a 

new SWEIS is appropriate. 

The new SWEIS will evaluate new 

proposals as well as update the analyses 

presented in the original SWEIS (DOE/ 

EIS–0309) issued in November 2001 (66 

FR 56663, November 9, 2001). In its 

2002 Record of Decision (ROD) (67 FR 

11296, March 13, 2002), DOE 

announced its decision to continue 

operations at Y–12 and to construct and 

operate two new facilities: (1) The 

Highly Enriched Uranium Materials 

Facility (HEUMF) and (2) the Special 

Materials Complex (SMC). The HEUMF 

is currently under construction. The 

SMC was subsequently cancelled due to 

changing mission requirements and 

replaced by a smaller facility that 

pertains to purification only 

(Supplement Analysis for Purification 

Facility, Site-Wide Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Y–12 National 

Security Complex, DOE/EIS–0309/SA–

1, August 2002), and the installation of 

two new pieces of equipment to allow 

reuse of parts rather than construction 

of a facility to manufacture new parts. 

The No Action Alternative for the new 

SWEIS is the continued implementation 

of the 2002 ROD, as modified by actions 

analyzed in subsequent NEPA reviews. 

Three action alternatives are proposed 

for consideration in the new SWEIS in 

addition to the No Action Alternative. 

Each alternative includes the No Action 

Alternative as a baseline. The three 

alternatives differ in that one includes a 

new fully modernized manufacturing 

facility optimized for safety, security 

and efficiency; another consists of 

upgrading the existing facilities to attain 

the highest level of safety, security and 

efficiency possible without construction 

of new facilities; and the third consists 

of operating the current facilities until 

they are no longer viable followed by 

deactivation of those facilities and 

cessation of the associated operations. 

DATES: NNSA invites comments on the 

scope of the SWEIS. The public scoping 

period starts with the publication of this 

NOI in the Federal Register and will 

continue through January 9, 2006. 

NNSA will consider all comments 

received or postmarked through this 

date in defining the scope of the SWEIS. 

Scoping comments received after this 

date will be considered to the extent 

practicable. NNSA will hold public 

scoping meetings at 475 Oak Ridge 

Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in the 

U.S. Department of Energy Information 

Center on December 15, 2005, from 11 

a.m. to 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The 

public scoping meetings will provide 

the public with an opportunity to 

present comments, ask questions, and 

discuss issues with NNSA officials 

regarding the SWEIS. The NNSA has 

invited the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation to 

participate as a cooperating agency in 

the preparation of the SWEIS. By this 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 71271 

Notice of Intent, the NNSA requests all 

other federal, state, local and tribal 

agencies to express their interest in 

being designated as a cooperating 

agency in the preparation of the SWEIS. 

ADDRESSES: For information concerning 

the SWEIS, please contact Ms. Pam 

Gorman, Y–12 SWEIS Document 

Manager, at (865) 576–9903 or e-mail at 

gormanpl@yso.doe.gov. Written 

comments on the scope of the SWEIS or 

requests to be placed on the document 

distribution list can be sent to the Y–12 

SWEIS Document Manager, 800 Oak 

Ridge Turnpike, Suite A–500, Oak 

Ridge, TN 37830; by facsimile to (865) 

482–6052; or by e-mail to comments@y12sweis.com. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information on the DOE NEPA 

process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance, EH–42, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–4600, 

or leave a message at 1–800–472–2756. 

Additional information regarding DOE 

NEPA activities and access to many 

NEPA documents, including the 2001 

SWEIS, are available on the Internet 

through the NEPA Web site at http:// 

www.eh.doe.gov/nepa. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. Y–12 is located on the 

Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), 

approximately 25 miles west of 

Knoxville, Tennessee. For purposes of 

the SWEIS, the Y–12 Site is defined as 

approximately 5,400 acres of the 33,749- 

acre ORR, bounded by the DOE 

Boundary and Pine Ridge to the north, 

Scarboro Road to the east, Bethel Valley 

Road to the south, west to Mount 

Vernon Road, and then extending west 

along Bear Creek Road to Gum Branch 

Road and a corridor along Bear Creek 

Road to the intersection of Route 95. Y–

12 has an annual budget of 

approximately $865 million and 

employs approximately 6,000 people. 

NNSA is responsible for providing the 

nation with nuclear weapons 

components and ensuring those 

components remain safe and reliable. 

Y–12 is the NNSA’s primary site for 

enriched uranium processing and 

storage, and one of the primary 

manufacturing facilities for maintaining 

the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Y–

12’s nuclear nonproliferation programs 

play a critical role in securing our 

nation and the world and in combating 

the spread of weapons of mass 

destruction. 

Non-defense activities at Y–12 

include environmental monitoring and 

remediation activities; deactivation and 

decontamination activities; management 

of waste materials; research activities 

operated by the Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory; support of other DOE 

programs and federal agencies through 

the Work-for-Others Program; the 

transfer of specialized technologies to 

the U.S. industrial base; and, the supply 

of specialized materials to DOE’s foreign 

and domestic customers. 

Alternatives for the SWEIS. Three 

action alternatives and a No Action 

Alternative have been identified for 

analysis in the SWEIS. The list is 

tentative and intended to facilitate 

public comment on the scope of this 

SWEIS. The No Action Alternative is 

defined by the 2002 ROD baseline, as 

amended by subsequent NEPA reviews. 

Alternative 1 includes the No Action 

Alternative and proposes to modernize 

the Y–12 National Security Complex 

around a modern Uranium Processing 

Facility (UPF). Alternative 2 includes 

the No Action Alternative and proposes 

extending the life of existing facilities 

with only the most cost effective 

modernization possible without 

replacing the current structures. 

Alternative 3 consists of reducing site 

operations as facilities reach the point 

where they can no longer be safely 

operated without significant repairs or 

modernization. 

No Action Alternative. The No Action 

Alternative includes the continued 

implementation of the 2002 ROD as 

modified by subsequent actions which 

have undergone separate NEPA review. 

The following decisions announced in 

the 2002 ROD, modifications to these 

decisions, and actions undertaken since 

the 2002 ROD are included in the No 

Action Alternative. 

1. Highly Enriched Uranium Materials 

Facility (HEUMF). The new HEUMF 

(now under construction) will store all 

highly enriched uranium that is not 

being used in manufacturing activities. 

The HEUMF—to be completed in 2007 

and start full-scale operations in 2008—

will reduce the current storage footprint, 

improve security and lower operating 

costs as described in DOE/EIS–0309. 

2. Special Materials Complex (SMC). 

This project was cancelled because it 

was no longer required by the reduced 

manufacturing needs of the smaller 

weapons stockpile. The project was 

replaced by a new purification facility 

and installation of two pieces of 

equipment within an existing facility; 

these actions allow reuse of existing 

parts. (Final Supplement Analysis for 

Purification Facility, Site-Wide 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Y–12 National Security Complex, DOE/ 

EIS–0309/SA–1, August 2002). The 

Supplement Analysis assessed whether 

the potential environmental impacts of 

the stand-alone purification facility, a 

component of the SMC analyzed in the 

Y–12 SWEIS, would require the 

preparation of a Supplemental SWEIS. 

The determination was made that 

proceeding with the purification facility 

would either reduce or not affect the 

environmental impacts of the SMC 

identified in the Y–12 SWEIS, and 

therefore no additional NEPA analysis 

was required. 

3. Infrastructure Reduction Initiative 

(IRI). The IRI is a series of individual 

projects to remove excess buildings and 

infrastructure, with a goal of reducing 

the active footprint at Y–12 by 50 

percent during the next decade. As of 

September 27, 2005, total operational 

space at Y–12 has been reduced by 

1,119,910 square feet and 244 buildings 

have been demolished or removed. Over 

the past five years, each demolition 

project was reviewed pursuant to NEPA 

prior to initiation and found to be 

covered by the Categorical Exclusion 

established by 10 CFR 1021 Appendix 

B1.23 (Demolition and Subsequent 

Disposal of Buildings, Equipment, and 

Support Structures). 

4. Manufacturing Support and Public 

Interface facilities. These privately 

developed facilities are technical, 

administrative, and light laboratory 

buildings that will be built on land 

transferred to a private entity. The 

managing and operating contractor of 

the Y–12 Plant may lease these 

facilities. They were included in an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) and a 

subsequent Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) (Alternate Financed 

Facility Modernization EA and FONSI, 

DOE/EA–1510, January 2005). 

5. Transportation of Highly Enriched 

Uranium (HEU) from foreign locations 

to Y–12. Subsequent to issuance of the 

2002 Record of Decision (ROD) (67 FR 

11296, March 13, 2002), the Y–12 site 

was given the additional mission of 

securing and storing small quantities of 

HEU transported from foreign locations 

to prevent proliferation of nuclear 

weapons and to minimize or eliminate 

the use of HEU in civilian reactors. 

Environmental Assessments were 

prepared and FONSI’s issued for these 

actions (Environmental Assessment for 

the Transportation of Highly Enriched 

Uranium from the Russian Federation to 

the Y–12 Security Complex, DOE/EA–

1471, January 2004; and Environmental 

Assessment for the Transportation of 

Unirradiated Uranium in Research 

Reactor Fuel from Argentina, Belgium, 

Japan and the Republic of Korea to the 

Y–12 National Security Complex, DOE/ 

EA–1529, June 2005). 

71272 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 

The No Action Alternative also 

includes the following other actions for 

which NEPA documentation is pending 

and expected to be completed prior to 

issuance of any ROD based on this 

SWEIS: (1) refurbishments or upgrades 

to Y–12 utility systems, such as those 

for potable water (Environmental 

Assessment for the Y–12 Potable Water 

System Upgrade, DOE/EA–1548; Final 

EA and a FONSI expected to be 

completed in January 2006); and (2) 

disposition of excess mercury in storage 

at Y–12 (an Environmental Assessment 

is currently being prepared and should 

be completed in early 2006). 

Alternative 1. New Uranium 

Processing Facility (UPF). Under this 

alternative, NNSA would take all 

actions in the No Action Alternative, 

undertake a series of utilities 

modernization projects not assessed in 

previous NEPA documents, construct 

and operate a modern UPF sized to 

support the smaller nuclear weapon 

stockpile of the future, and take other 

actions as described below to create a 

modern weapon enterprise. 

The UPF would be the keystone of the 

modernization efforts in this alternative. 

The UPF would consolidate all enriched 

uranium (EU) operations into an 

integrated manufacturing operation 

sized to satisfy all identified 

programmatic needs and would be sited 

adjacent to the HEUMF to allow the two 

facilities to function as one integrated 

operation. Extensive engineered security 

and safety features would combine with 

technical innovations such as agile 

machining to allow significant 

improvements in working conditions for 

production workers and security guards. 

Operations to be consolidated in the 

UPF are currently located in six 

facilities. After startup of UPF 

operations, some of these facilities 

would be used to consolidate non-EU 

operations, and others would be 

demolished. 

Transition of EU production 

operations to the UPF and transition of 

EU storage operations into HEUMF (No 

Action Alternative) would create a new 

high-security area equal to 10 percent of 

the current high security protected area. 

The current high security protected area 

would revert to normal access. 

Some other aspects of the site would 

be modernized, including upgrades to 

site electrical, compressed air, steam, 

and security systems. Nonnuclear 

operations and plant support functions 

would be consolidated into four new 

facilities adjacent to the new highsecurity area, and most of the 

Manhattan Project and Cold War 

structures on the site (excepting those 

with historical designations) could be 

demolished. The costs of nonnuclear 

modernization and building removal 

would be significantly reduced because 

the construction and demolition 

projects would not require the 

expensive security measures required 

for work within the high security 

protected area. Separate NEPA reviews 

would be conducted for each demolition 

project. 

The new facilities, especially the UPF, 

would increase the safety of workers 

and the public by replacing many of the 

administrative controls in aging 

facilities with contemporary engineered 

safety features. Operating and security 

costs of the new facilities would be 

significantly less than those of the 

current facilities. Demolition of nonhistoric facilities would eliminate the 

safety and environmental risks of 

maintaining old deactivated structures. 

Alternative 2. Upgrades to Existing 

Enriched Uranium and Other Processing 

Facilities. Under this alternative, NNSA 

would continue the No Action 

Alternative, undertake a series of 

utilities modernization projects not 

assessed in the previous NEPA 

documents, and upgrade the existing 

enriched uranium and nonnuclear 

processing facilities to contemporary 

environmental, safety, and security 

standards to the extent possible within 

the limitations of the existing structures 

and without prolonged interruptions of 

manufacturing operations. 

Under this alternative, there would be 

no UPF, the high-security area would 

expand to include the HEUMF, and no 

parts of the current high-security area 

would revert to normal access. Existing 

production facilities would be 

modernized to the extent possible 

within the limitations of the existing 

structures and without prolonged 

interruptions of manufacturing 

operations; however, it would not be 

possible to attain the level of safety, 

security and efficiency possible in 

Alternative 1. 

The current facilities were 

constructed during the Manhattan 

Project or in the early days of the Cold 

War when construction and safety 

standards were very different than 

today. Their modernization would 

require extensive changes to critical 

building sytems including electrical and 

fire protection systems. Ventilation 

systems would have to be re-engineered 

and replaced with modern systems. 

Some structures would require 

extensive re-enforcement to allow the 

seismic response required by current 

codes. 

It would not be possible in all cases 

to modernize the existing structures to 

meet current operational, safety and 

security expectations. The age and 

configuration of some existing critical 

facilities preclude streamlined 

operations and also preclude some new 

safety and security features. Such 

facilities offer only limited 

opportunities to reduce operating and 

security costs or to enhance the safety 

of operations. While some 

improvements would be made to the 

existing facilties to address natural 

phenomena hazards such as earthquakes 

and tornadoes, the age of those facilities 

and their configuration may preclude 

cost-effective improvements in these 

critical areas to bring them up to current 

DOE standards. 

Some other nonnuclear aspects of the 

site would be modernized, including 

upgrades to electrical, compressed air, 

steam, and security systems. Some 

nonnuclear operations and plant 

support functions would be 

consolidated into existing structures. 

Nonnuclear operations would be 

modernized through consolidation of 

operations into existing facilities with 

no new construction. Nonnuclear 

modernizations and demolition of 

unneeded Manhattan Project and Cold 

War facilities would be conducted 

within the expanded high security 

protected area at significantly higher 

costs than Alternative 1. 

Alternative 3. Reduced Operations. 

NNSA would invest no additional funds 

beyond normal maintenance in the Y–

12 National Security Complex. Facilities 

posing an unacceptable risk to workers 

or the public would be minimally 

upgraded if an inexpensive upgrade 

would allow operations to continue 

safely, or deactivated if the costs to 

operate safely exceeded the costs of 

normal maintenance. Although NNSA 

would maintain full operational 

readiness in Y–12 facilities and 

operations where that could be done 

safely with normal maintenance 

expenditures, operations would cease 

when expensive maintenance needs 

rendered facilities unviable. As NNSA 

retired unviable facilities, the operations 

in these facilities would cease and Y–12 

would lose the ability to perform the 

missions located in these facilities. 

NNSA would make the expenditures 

necessary to maintain safety and 

security for nuclear materials or other 

hazardous materials. Additionally, Y–12 

would make the expenditures needed to 

continue dismantlement activities 

consistent with Presidential direction to 

reduce the nuclear weapons stockpile, 

even if those operations required 

significant maintenance expenditures. 

Demolition of excess facilities beyond 

that described in the No Action 

Alternative would be subject to a 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 227 / Monday, November 28, 2005 / Notices 71273 

separate NEPA review if funds became 

available. This alternative differs from 

the No Action Alternative in that the No 

Action Alternative assumes sufficient 

expenditures to sustain operational 

capability, while the Reduced 

Operations Alternative assumes 

deactivation of facilities when their 

continued safe operation requires more 

than normal maintenance except where 

noted above. 

Public Scoping Process. The scoping 

process is an opportunity for the public 

to assist the NNSA in determining the 

issues for impact analysis. A public 

scoping meeting will be held as noted 

under DATES. The purpose of the 

scoping meeting is to provide the public 

with an opportunity to present oral and 

written comments, ask questions, and 

discuss concerns regarding the new 

SWEIS with NNSA officials. Comments 

and recommendations can also be 

communicated to NNSA as noted earlier 

in this notice under ADDRESSES. The 

SWEIS public meetings will use a 

format to facilitate dialogue between 

NNSA and the public. NNSA welcomes 

specific comments or suggestions on the 

content of the document. 

The potential scope of the SWEIS 

discussed in the previous portions of 

this NOI is tentative and is intended to 

facilitate public comment on the scope 

of the SWEIS. The SWEIS will describe 

the potential environmental impacts of 

the alternatives by using available data 

where possible and obtaining additional 

data where necessary. Copies of written 

comments and transcripts of oral 

comments provided to NNSA during the 

scoping period will be available at the 

U.S. Department of Energy Public 

Reading Room at 230 Warehouse Road, 

Oak Ridge, TN 37830, and on the 

internet at http://www.y-12sweis.com. 

The 2001 SWEIS is available on the 

internet at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ 

eis/eis0309/toc.html. 

SWEIS Preparation Process. The 

SWEIS preparation process begins with 

the publication of this NOI in the 

Federal Register. After the close of the 

public scoping period, NNSA will begin 

preparing the draft SWEIS. NNSA 

expects to issue the draft SWEIS for 

public review by next summer. Public 

comments on the draft SWEIS will be 

received during a comment period of at 

least 45 days following the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publication of the Notice of Availability 

in the Federal Register. Notices placed 

in local newspapers will specify dates 

and locations for at least one public 

hearing on the draft SWEIS, and will 

establish a schedule for submitting 

comments on the draft, including a final 

date for submission of comments. 

Issuance of the final SWEIS is 

scheduled for late 2006. 

Classified Material. NNSA will review 

classified material while preparing this 

SWEIS. Within the limits of 

classification, NNSA will provide the 

public as much information as possible 

to assist its understanding and ability to 

comment. Any classified material 

needed to explain the purpose and need 

for the action, or the analyses in this 

SWEIS, will be segregated into a 

classified appendix or supplement, 

which will not be available for public 

review. However, all unclassified 

information or results of calculations 

using classified data will be reported in 

the unclassified section of the SWEIS, to 

the extent possible in accordance with 

Federal classification requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

November, 2005. 

Linton F. Brooks, 

Administrator, National Nuclear Security 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–23369 Filed 11–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Western Area Power Administration 

[Rate Order No. WAPA–125] 

Loveland Area Projects 

AGENCY: Western Area Power 

Administration, DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of order concerning 

power rates. 

SUMMARY: The Deputy Secretary of 

Energy confirmed and approved Rate 

Order No. WAPA–125 and Rate 

Schedule L–F6, placing firm electric 

service rates from the Loveland Area 

Projects (LAP) of the Western Area 

Power Administration (Western) into 

effect on an interim basis. The 

provisional rates will be in effect until 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) confirms, 

approves, and places them into effect on 

a final basis or until they are replaced 

by other rates. The provisional rates will 

provide sufficient revenue to pay all 

annual costs, including interest 

expenses, and repay power investment 

and irrigation aid, within the allowable 

periods. 

DATES: Rate Schedule L–F6 will be 

placed into effect on an interim basis on 

the first day of the first full billing 

period beginning on or after January 1, 

2006, and will be in effect until the 

Commission confirms, approves, and 

places the provisional rates into effect 

on a final basis ending December 31, 

2010, or until the rate schedule is 

superseded. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Joel K. Bladow, Regional Manager, 

Rocky Mountain Customer Service 

Region, Western Area Power 

Administration, 5555 East Crossroads 

Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado, 80538–

8986, (970) 461–7201, or Mr. Daniel T. 

Payton, Rates Manager, Rocky Mountain 

Customer Service Region, Western Area 

Power Administration, 5555 East 

Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, 

Colorado, 80538–8986, telephone (970) 

461–7442, e-mail dpayton@wapa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Deputy Secretary of Energy approved 

existing Rate Schedule L–F5 for LAP 

firm electric service on an interim basis 

on December 24, 2003 (Rate Order No. 

WAPA–105, 69 FR 644, January 6, 

2004). The Commission confirmed and 

approved the rate schedule on a final 

basis on December 21, 2004, in FERC 

Docket No. EF04–5181–000 (109 FERC 

62,228). The existing rate schedule is 

effective from February 1, 2004, through 

December 31, 2008. 

Existing firm electric service Rate 

Schedule L–F5 is being superseded by 

Rate Schedule L–F6. Under Rate 

Schedule L–F5, the energy charge is 

11.95 mills per kilowatthour (mills/ 

kWh) and the capacity charge is $3.14 

per kilowattmonth (kWmonth). The 

composite rate is 23.90 mills/kWh. The 

provisional rates for LAP firm electric 

service under Rate Schedule L–F6 are 

being implemented in two steps. The 

first step of the provisional rates for LAP 

firm electric service consists of an 

energy charge of 13.06 mills/kWh and a 

capacity charge of $3.43 per kWmonth, 

producing an overall composite rate of 

26.12 mills/kWh on January 1, 2006. 

This represents a 9.3 percent increase 

when compared with the existing LAP 

firm electric service rate under Rate 

Schedule L–F5. The second step of the 

provisional rates for LAP firm electric 

service consists of an energy charge of 

13.68 mills/kWh and a capacity charge 

of $3.59 per kWmonth, producing an 

overall composite rate of 27.36 mills/ 

kWh on January 1, 2007. This represents 

an additional 5.2 percent increase. 

By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00, 

effective December 6, 2001, the 

Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The 

authority to develop power and 

transmission rates to Western’s 

Administrator, (2) the authority to 

confirm, approve, and place such rates 

into effect on an interim basis to the 

Deputy Secretary of Energy, and (3) the 

authority to confirm, approve, and place 

into effect on a final basis, to remand or 

to disapprove such rates to the