Notices. Notice of order concerning power rates

29,394 words·~134 min read·/register/2005/11/28/05-23359·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

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and places the provisional rates into effect on a final basis ending December 31, 2010, or until the rate schedule is superseded.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 Existing firm electric service Rate Schedule L-F5 is being superseded by Rate Schedule L-F6.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

(DOE)Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152). This Act transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy the power marketing functions of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)), and other Acts that specifically apply to the project involved. 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 Commission. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985. Acronyms and Definitions As used in this Rate Order, the following acronyms and definitions apply: *Administrator:* The Administrator of Western Area Power Administration. *Capacity:* The electric capability of a generator, transformer, transmission circuit, or other equipment. It is expressed in kW. *Capacity Charge:* The rate which sets forth the charges for capacity. It is expressed in dollars per kWmonth. *Commission:* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. *Composite Rate:* The rate for commercial firm power and is the total annual revenue requirement for capacity and energy divided by the total annual firm energy sales under contract. It is expressed in mills/kWh and used for comparison purposes. *Criteria:* The Post-1989 General Power Marketing and Allocation Criteria for the sale of energy with capacity from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division and the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. *Customer:* An entity with a contract for and receiving firm electric service from Western's Rocky Mountain Region. *Deficits:* Deferred or unrecovered annual expenses. *DOE Order RA 6120.2:* An order outlining power marketing administration financial reporting and rate-making procedures. *Energy:* Measured in terms of the work it is capable of doing over a period of time. It is expressed in kWh. *Energy Charge:* The rate which sets forth the charges for energy. It is expressed in mills per kWh and applied to each kWh delivered to each customer. *FERC:* The Commission (to be used when referencing Commission Orders). *Firm:* A type of product and/or service that is available at the time requested by the customer. *FRN:* **Federal Register** notice. *Fry-Ark:* Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. *FY:* Fiscal year; October 1 to September 30. kW: Kilowatt—the electrical unit of capacity that equals 1,000 watts. *kWmonth:* Kilowattmonth—the electrical unit of the monthly amount of capacity. *kWh:* Kilowatthour—the electrical unit of energy that equals 1,000 watts in 1 hour. *kilowattyear:* Kilowattyear—the electrical unit of the yearly amount of capacity. *LAP:* Loveland Area Projects. *L-F5:* Loveland Area Projects existing firm electric service rate schedule (expires December 31, 2008, or until superseded). *L-F6:* Loveland Area Projects provisional firm electric service rate schedule (effective January 1, 2006). *M&I:* Municipal and industrial water development. *mills/kWh:* Mills per kilowatthour—the unit of charge for energy (equals one tenth of a cent or one thousandth of a dollar). *MOU:* Memorandum of Understanding for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program and the Fry-Ark Project. Signatories include Western, Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, Loveland Area Customers Association, and Western States Power Corporation. *NEPA:* National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ). *O&M:* Operation and Maintenance. *P-SMBP:* The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. *P-SMBP—WD:* Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division. *Power:* Capacity and energy. *Preference:* The requirements of Reclamation Law which provide that preference in the sale of Federal power shall be given to municipalities and other public corporations or agencies and also to cooperatives and other nonprofit organizations financed in whole or in part by loans made under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Reclamation Project Act of 1939, section 9(c), 43 U.S.C. 485h(c)). *Provisional Rates:* Rates which have been confirmed, approved, and placed into effect on an interim basis by the Deputy Secretary. *PRS:* Power Repayment Study. *Rate Brochure:* A document prepared for public distribution explaining the rationale and background of the rate proposal contained in this rate order and dated June 2005. *Ratesetting PRS:* The PRS used for the rate adjustment proposal. *Reclamation:* United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. *Reclamation Law:* A series of Federal laws. Viewed as a whole, these laws create the originating framework in which Western markets power. *Revenue Requirement:* The revenue required to recover annual expenses (such as O&M, purchase power, transmission service expenses, interest expenses, and deferred expenses) and repay Federal investments, and other assigned costs. *Rocky Mountain Region:* The Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region of Western. *Western:* United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration. Effective Date The new provisional rates will take effect on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2006, and will be in effect until December 31, 2010, pending approval by the Commission on a final basis. Public Notice and Comment Western followed the Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions, 10 CFR part 903, in developing these rates. The steps Western took to involve interested parties in the rate process were: 1. The proposed rate adjustment was initiated on April 22, 2005, when Western's Rocky Mountain Region mailed a notice announcing an informal customer meeting to discuss the proposed firm electric service rate adjustment to all LAP preference customers and interested parties. The informal meeting was held on May 11, 2005, in Denver, Colorado. At this informal meeting, Western explained the rationale for the rate adjustment, presented rate designs and methodologies, and answered questions. 2. An FRN was published on June 16, 2005 (70 FR 35079), officially announcing proposed LAP rates, initiating the public consultation and comment period, and announcing the public information and public comment forums. 3. On July 1, 2005, Western's Rocky Mountain Region mailed letters to all LAP preference customers and interested parties transmitting a copy of the FRN published on June 16, 2005 (70 FR 35079). 4. The public information forums were held on July 19, 2005, beginning at 10 a.m. MDT, in Denver, Colorado, and again on July 20, 2005, beginning at 8 a.m. CDT, in Lincoln, Nebraska. Western provided detailed explanations of the proposed LAP rates, provided a list of issues that could change the proposed rates, and answered questions. A rate brochure detailing the proposed rates was provided at the forums. 5. The public comment forum was held on August 16, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m. MDT, in Denver, Colorado. Western gave the public an opportunity to comment for the record. No oral comments were made and no written comments were received during the comment forum. 6. Western received four comment letters during the consultation and comment period, which ended September 14, 2005. All formally submitted comments have been considered in preparing this Rate Order. 7. Western's Rocky Mountain Region provided a Web site with all of the letters, time frames, dates and locations of forums, documents discussed at the information meetings, FRNs, and all other information about this rate process for customer access. The Web site is located at *http://www.wapa.gov/rm/Rates/firm_power_rate_adj_2006.htm.* Comments Written comments were received from the following organizations: East River Electric Power Cooperative, Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska, Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Project Descriptions Loveland Area Projects The Post-1989 General Power Marketing and Allocation Criteria, published in the **Federal Register** on January 31, 1986 (51 FR 4012), integrated the resources of the P-SMBP—WD and Fry-Ark. This operational and contractual integration, known as LAP, allowed an increase in marketable resource, simplified contract administration, and established a blended rate for LAP power sales. However, the P-SMBP—WD and Fry-Ark retain separate financial status. For this reason, separate PRSs are prepared annually for each project. These PRSs are used to determine the sufficiency of the power rate to generate adequate revenue to repay project investment and costs during each project's prescribed repayment period. The revenue requirement of the Fry-Ark PRS is combined with the P-SMBP—WD revenue requirement derived from the P—SMBP PRS, to develop one rate for LAP firm electric sales. Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division The initial stages of the Missouri River Basin Project were authorized by Congress in section 9 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, commonly referred to as the 1944 Flood Control Act (Pub. L. 78-534, 58 Stat. 877, 891). The Missouri River Basin Project, later renamed the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program to honor its two principal authors, has been under construction since 1944. The P-SMBP encompasses a comprehensive program of flood control, navigation improvement, irrigation, M&I water development, and hydroelectric production for the entire Missouri River Basin. Multipurpose projects have been developed on the Missouri River and its tributaries in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. The Colorado-Big Thompson, Kendrick, Riverton, and Shoshone projects were administratively combined with P-SMBP in 1954, followed by the North Platte Project in 1959. These projects are known as the “Integrated Projects” of the P-SMBP. The Riverton Project was reauthorized as a unit of the P-SMBP in 1970. The P-SMBP—WD and the Integrated Projects include 19 powerplants. There are six powerplants in the P-SMBP—WD: Glendo, Kortes, and Fremont Canyon powerplants on the North Platte River; Boysen and Pilot Butte on the Wind River; and Yellowtail powerplant on the Big Horn River. In the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, there are also six powerplants. Green Mountain powerplant on the Blue River is on the West Slope of the Rocky Mountains. Marys Lake, Estes, Pole Hill, Flatiron, and Big Thompson powerplants are on the East Slope. The Kendrick Project has two power production facilities: Alcova and Seminoe powerplants. Power production facilities in the Shoshone Project are Shoshone, Buffalo Bill, Heart Mountain, and Spirit Mountain powerplants. The only production facility in the North Platte Project is the Guernsey powerplant. Fryingpan-Arkansas Project The Fry-Ark is a transmountain diversion development in southeastern Colorado authorized by the Act of Congress on August 16, 1962 (Pub. L. 87-590, 76 Stat. 389, as amended by Title XI of the Act of Congress on October 27, 1974 (Pub. L. 93-493, 88 Stat. 1486, 1497)). The Fry-Ark diverts water from the Fryingpan River and other tributaries of the Roaring Fork River in the Colorado River Basin on the West Slope of the Rocky Mountains to the Arkansas River on the East Slope. The water diverted from the West Slope, together with regulated Arkansas River water, provides supplemental irrigation, M&I water supplies, and produces hydroelectric power. Flood control, fish and wildlife enhancement, and recreation are other important purposes of Fry-Ark. The only generating facility in Fry-Ark is the Mt. Elbert Pumped-Storage Powerplant on the East Slope. Power Repayment Studies Western prepares a PRS each FY to determine if revenues will be sufficient to repay, within the required time, all costs assigned to the LAP revenues. Repayment criteria are based on law, policies including DOE Order RA 6120.2, and authorizing legislation. To meet Cost Recovery Criteria outlined in DOE Order RA 6120.2, a revised study and rate adjustment has been developed to demonstrate that sufficient revenues will be collected to meet future obligations. In the P-SMBP PRS, payments toward irrigation assistance and capital debt are necessary before deficits are completely repaid. Traditionally, prepayment of irrigation assistance or capital is only done in the absence of deficits. However, if all revenue were applied toward deficits prior to making any prepayments for irrigation and other capital requirements, an extraordinarily large rate increase to meet single-year repayment obligations would be required. Once these single-year repayment obligations were satisfied, another rate adjustment would be necessary to decrease the rates. While repayment of capital debt and irrigation assistance prior to complete repayment of deficits is not typical, the approach approved within this Rate Order is well within the bounds of DOE Order RA 6120.2. Western will repay all deficits and also make previously planned payments for irrigation assistance and other investments that are due in the years 2013 and 2014. Prepaying irrigation and capital investments has been part of P-SMBP repayment plans and approved rate adjustments for the past 20 years. It is an integral part of the long-term plan for the project and has provided rate stability for consumers while meeting Federal repayment obligations. Modest irrigation and investment payments for a brief period of 2 to 3 years will reduce the single-year revenue requirement for irrigation assistance and hold increases to the “lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles,” as outlined in section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. The provisional rates for LAP will be implemented in two steps. First step rates are to become effective on an interim basis on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2006. Second step rates are to become effective on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2007. Under Rate Schedule L-F6, the first and second step provisional rates for LAP firm electric service will result in a total composite rate increase of approximately 14.5 percent. The current composite rate under Rate Schedule L-F5 is 23.90 mills/kWh. The provisional composite rate is 27.36 mills/kWh. Existing and Provisional Rates A comparison of the existing and provisional rates for LAP firm electric service follows: Comparison of Existing and Provisional Rates LAP Firm Electric Service Firm electric service Existing rates First step provisional rates and percent change, effective Jan. 1, 2006 Second step provisional rates and percent change, effective Jan. 1, 2007 Rate Schedule L-F5 L-F6 L-F6 Composite Rate (mills/kWh) 23.90 26.12 (9.3%) 27.36 (5.2%) Firm Capacity ($/kWmonth) $3.14 $3.43 (9.2%) $3.59 (5.1%) Firm Energy (mills/kWh) 11.95 13.06 (9.3%) 13.68 (5.2%) Certification of Rates Western's Administrator certified that the provisional rates for LAP firm electric service under Rate Schedule L-F6 are the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. The provisional rates were developed following administrative policies and applicable laws. LAP Firm Electric Service Discussion According to Reclamation Law, Western must establish power rates sufficient to recover operation, maintenance, and purchase power expenses, and repay power investment and irrigation aid. The Criteria, published in the **Federal Register** on January 31, 1986 (51 FR 4012), operationally and contractually integrated the resources of the P-SMBP—WD and Fry-Ark (thereafter referred to as LAP). A blended rate was established for the sale of LAP power. The P-SMBP—WD portion of the revenue requirements for the LAP firm electric service rates was developed from the revenue requirement calculated in the P-SMBP Ratesetting PRS. The P-SMBP—WD revenue requirement increased approximately 17 percent due to increased purchase power costs due to extended drought as well as costs associated with increased O&M expenses. The adjustment to the P-SMBP revenue requirement is a separate formal rate process which is documented in Rate Order No. WAPA-126. Rate Order No. WAPA-126 is also scheduled to go into effect on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2006. The revenue requirements for P-SMBP—WD are as follows: Summary of P-SMBP—WD Revenue Requirements ($000) Present Revenue Requirement (18.06 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh) $35,903 Provisional Increases Provisional First Step Increase (Jan 06) (1.96 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh) 3,896 Provisional Second Step Increase (Jan 07) (1.07 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh) 2,127 Total Increase (3.03 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh) 6,024 Provisional Revenue Requirement (18.06 + 3.03 = 21.09 mills/kWh × 1,988,000,000 kWh) 41,927 The Fry-Ark piece of the revenue requirements for the LAP firm electric service rates was developed from the revenue requirement calculated in the Fry-Ark Ratesetting PRS, which has been updated to reflect the most current information. The Fry-Ark revenue requirement contains two components. The project has an average annual energy generation of 52 gigawatthours from flow-through water. The remaining revenue requirement is derived from the firm capacity component. This is the procedure used in the study to account for the Fry-Ark portion of the energy marketed by LAP. The Fry-Ark revenue requirement increased approximately 8 percent also due to increased O&M expenses and higher costs associated with increased purchase power costs due to extended drought. Summary of Fry-Ark Revenue Requirements ($000) Present Revenue Requirement $12,855 Provisional Increases Provisional First Step Increase (Jan 06) 650 Provisional Second Step Increase (Jan 07) 396 Total Increase 1,046 Provisional Revenue Requirement 13,901 This table compares the LAP existing revenue requirements to the proposed revenue requirements: Summary of LAP Revenue Requirements ($000) Existing First step (January 2006) Second step (January 2007) P-SMBP—WD $35,903 $39,800 $41,927 Fry-Ark 12,855 13,505 13,901 Total LAP 48,758 53,305 55,828 Statement of Revenue and Related Expenses The following table provides a summary of projected revenue and expense data for the Fry-Ark firm electric service revenue requirement through the 5-year provisional rate approval period: Fry-Ark Comparison of 5-Year Rate Approval Period (FY 2006-2010) Total Revenue and Expense ($000) Existing rate Proposed rate Difference Total Revenues $71,850 $76,724 $4,747 Revenue Distribution: Expenses: O&M 22,095 22,601 506 Purchase Power and Transmission 21,743 23,399 1,656 Interest 1 23,939 23,881 −58 Total Expenses 67,777 69,881 2,104 Principal Payments: Capitalized Expenses 0 374 374 Original Project and Additions 3,133 940 −2,193 Replacements 940 5,529 4,589 Total Principal Payments 4,073 6,843 2,770 Total Revenue Distribution 71,850 76,724 4,874 1 Interest expenses decreased due to a lower interest rate being used for future replacements and additions in the Ratesetting PRS. The summary of P-SMBP—WD revenues and expenses for the 5-year provisional rate approval period is included in the P-SMBP Statement of Revenue and Related Expenses that is part of Rate Order No. WAPA-126. Basis for Rate Development The P-SMBP PRS calculates the composite rate in mills/kWh for future firm power (capacity and energy) sales. In the Fry-Ark PRS, the study calculates the capacity charge in dollars per kilowattyear. The charge is adjusted until sufficient revenues are generated to meet the cost-recovery requirement. The proposed LAP firm electric service rate is designed to recover 50 percent of the revenue requirement from the capacity charge and 50 percent from the energy charge. The capacity charge is calculated by dividing 50 percent of the total annual revenue requirement by the number of billing units (kWmonth) in a year. The energy charge is calculated by dividing 50 percent of the total annual revenue requirement by the annual energy sales under contract. The existing rates for LAP firm electric service in Rate Schedule L-F5, which expire on December 31, 2008, no longer provide sufficient revenues to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay power investment and irrigation aid within the allowable period. The adjusted rates reflect increases primarily in purchase power costs, O&M costs, and interest expenses. The provisional rates will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay power investment and irrigation aid within the allowable periods. The provisional rates will take effect on January 1, 2006, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2010. Comments The comments and responses applicable to the LAP firm electric service rates, paraphrased for brevity when not affecting the meaning of the statement(s), are discussed below. Comments that apply to P-SMBP only are being answered in Rate Order No. WAPA-126. A. *Comment:* Customers support implementing the two-step rate adjustment on a calendar year basis. *Response:* The two-step rate adjustment proposal meets all repayment requirements according to DOE Order RA 6120.2, and since the majority of the customers support the calendar year implementation, Western will implement the first step of the two-step rate adjustment on January 1, 2006, and the second step of the two-step rate adjustment on January 1, 2007. B. *Comment:* One commenter noted that working with Western through the MOU work group has been beneficial during this process. The MOU group has identified an issue regarding personnel costs of the federal agencies that merits further attention. The commenter recognized that this issue could not be resolved during consideration of the rate increase, but the commenter encouraged Western to move forward with its investigation into this issue. *Response:* Western, through the MOU process, has agreed to look into this issue. C. *Comment:* Customers noted their concern regarding the rate of increase in Reclamation's O&M costs. *Response:* Western is actively participating with the customers through the MOU group, in which Reclamation also participates, to better understand what is driving Reclamation's increases. D. *Comment:* One commenter noted that ongoing drought should be viewed as a good opportunity to review cutting discretionary costs where possible and look at the rate structure for some of Western's less widely used products to determine if they are appropriate and if they could be modified to more accurately reflect cost of service principles. *Response:* As mentioned above, Western is actively participating with the customers through the MOU group to identify and address such issues. E. *Comment:* One commenter encouraged Western to continue investigating ways to maximize the value of its assets, including transmission rights across neighboring systems and high-value transmission across constrained paths. *Response:* Western continually looks for ways to increase revenues and decrease costs, including maximizing the use of the transmission system. However, Western has determined that this particular comment is not directly related to the proposed action and is outside the scope of the rate process. Availability of Information Information about this rate adjustment, including PRSs, comments, letters, memorandums, and other supporting material made or kept by Western that was used to develop the provisional rates is available for public review in the Rocky Mountain Customer Service Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado. Regulatory Procedure Requirements Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property. Environmental Compliance In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined that this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Determination Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure. Submission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The provisional rates herein confirmed, approved, and placed into effect, together with supporting documents, will be submitted to the Commission for confirmation and final approval. Order In view of the foregoing and under the authority delegated to me, I confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective January 1, 2006, Rate Schedule L-F6 for the Loveland Area Projects of the Western Area Power Administration. The rate schedule shall remain in effect on an interim basis, pending the Commission's confirmation and approval of them or substitute rates on a final basis through December 31, 2010. Dated: November 9, 2005. Clay Sell, Deputy Secretary. Rate Schedule L-F6 (Supersedes Schedule L-F5) Loveland Area Projects; Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming Schedule of Rates for Firm Electric Service Effective First Step: Beginning on the first day of the first full billing period on or after January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Second Step: Beginning on the first day of the first full billing period on or after January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2010. Available Within the marketing area served by the Loveland Area Projects. Applicable To the wholesale power customers for firm power service supplied through one meter at one point of delivery, or as otherwise established by contract. Character Alternating current, 60 hertz, three phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points established by contract. Monthly Rates First Step: *Demand Charge:* $3.43 per kilowatt

(kW)of billing demand. *Energy Charge:* 13.06 mills per kilowatthour

(kWh)of use. *Billing Demand:* Unless otherwise specified by contract, the billing demand will be the seasonal contract rate of delivery. Second Step: *Demand Charge:* $3.59 per kW of billing demand. *Energy Charge:* 13.68 mills per kWh of use. *Billing Demand:* Unless otherwise specified by contract, the billing demand will be the seasonal contract rate of delivery. Adjustments *For Transformer Losses:* If delivery is made at transmission voltage but metered on the low-voltage side of the substation, the meter readings will be increased to compensate for transformer losses as provided for in the contract. *For Power Factor:* None. The customer will be required to maintain a power factor at all points of measurement between 95-percent lagging and 95-percent leading. [FR Doc. E5-6575 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Parker-Davis Project, Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project, and the Central Arizona Project—Rate Order No. WAPA-114 AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE. ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of multi-system transmission rate proposal. SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) initiated a formal rate process for the purpose of implementing a multi-system transmission rate

(MSTR)by a **Federal Register** notice published on June 22, 2004. The process was extended by a **Federal Register** notice on March 3, 2005. The purpose of the extension was to allow Western time to respond to customer requests to develop a customer choice model. Western developed and presented a customer choice methodology in public information and public comment forums held March 29, 2005, and April 6, 2005, respectively. Effective November 28, 2005, Western is withdrawing the MSTR proposal for long-term firm transmission service on the Parker-Davis Project (P-DP), the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project (Intertie), and the Central Arizona Project (CAP). Western has considered all comments in its decision to withdraw its proposal for the MSTR for long-term firm transmission service. Western is, however, studying the conversion of non-firm and short-term firm transmission service on the Parker-Davis, Intertie and Central Arizona projects to a multi-system service. Customer notification will be provided and feedback sought in a separate informal process. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. J. Tyler Carlson, Regional Manager, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone

(602)605-2453, e-mail *carlson@wapa.gov,* or Mr. Jack Murray, Rates Team Lead, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457, telephone

(602)605-2442, e-mail *jmurray@wapa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During the consultation and comment period for the rate process, Western received comments voicing strong opposition to the proposed methodology. No comments were received in support of the customer choice methodology. The consultation and comment period ended June 1, 2005. All formally submitted comments, both written and oral, were considered in preparing this notice. Comments Written comments were received from the following organizations: Arizona Power Authority, Arizona Public Service Company, K. R. Saline & Associates, Robert S. Lynch and Associates, Salt River Project. Representatives of the following organizations made oral comments: Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona, R. W. Beck, Salt River Project. Western responded to an oral comment received during the Public Information Forum in a letter dated May 17, 2005. The letter is posted on Western's Web site at *http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/MSTRP.htm.* Responses in this notice focus on written comments received during the consultation and comment period pertinent to a revised customer choice model and Western's authority to develop an MSTR. *Comment:* Western received a comment suggesting it has no legal authority to implement an MSTR of any sort if the revenue requirements of multiple projects will be combined. Comments also questioned whether an MSTR is allowed by DOE Order RA6120.2. *Response:* Under all MSTR approaches presented by Western, each power system would remain financially independent for accounting and repayment purposes. Each power system would maintain a separate Power Repayment Study

(PRS)and financial reports. The total MSTR revenue collected would be allocated to each power system based on the individual power system's percentage of the total MSTR revenue requirement. Western is not prohibited from implementing such a blended rate by either DOE Order RA 6120.2 or project-specific legislation. Western has combined the revenue requirements of multiple projects for ratesetting purposes in its other regional offices and continues to set rates in this manner. *Comment:* A commenter who had asked Western to provide general information on the MSTR more than one year ago believes Western has not provided this information. *Response:* The specific request had to do with Western's initial presentation of a customer choice methodology. The presentation consisted mainly of tables and mathematical formulas to explain the circular problem with the method. At the commenter's request an explanation in words was posted on the Web site in June, 2003 under the heading “Informal Customer Meeting May 23, 2003” linked with the phrase “Customer Choice Discussion.” *Comment:* A customer commented that the “customer choice” model is an attempt to lower rates for a small group of “pancaked” customers at the expense of the majority of Western's firm transmission customers. *Response:* Western undertook the design of the proposed “customer choice model” to address several customers’ comments received during the initial MSTR consultation and comment period. One of the earliest principles stated by Western in the initial MSTR development was to eliminate the pancaking of firm transmission rates. It was known that any elimination of pancaking of rates will result in a revenue loss to a single power system by virtue of the pancaked customer no longer having to pay two systems' rates for the same reservation. Western's customer choice model took this into account and chose a rate which would begin to eliminate pancaking while balancing the risk to the other power systems. Western projected additional other revenues would be realized in sufficient amounts to make up for any losses resulting from MSTR implementation. *Comment:* A comment suggested Western re-open the public process to develop a customer choice model that would be supported by a majority of customers. *Response:* Over a 2-year period, Western has explored numerous options for a multi-system transmission rate. Four options were customer choice models using various approaches. In all cases, for Western to be able to collect the full revenue requirement, some customers will incur increased costs as a result of a firm MSTR implementation. In other customer choice models explored by Western, varying levels of support were noted. However in no case did a majority of customers support the methodologies. Support was dependent upon the timing and the extent of potential cost increases. *Comment:* A comment requested Western calculate the magnitude of rate decreases if revenue projections materialize without implementation of an MSTR. *Response:* During the public process for the customer choice MSTR, Western presented a table showing some loss of firm revenues to the single system projects due to partial un-pancaking. Western projected mitigating this loss of revenues in order to provide for stable single system rates. Western's commitment to its customers is to keep rates as stable as possible for the foreseeable future. It is not appropriate to project a rate decrease given the many variables which may impact the rate calculation. *Comment:* A comment suggested that if the MSTR is implemented, the return of funds to each single system should be based on the amount of transmission revenue lost due to MSTR implementation instead of based on the percentage share of total revenue requirement, as proposed by Western. *Response:* The method the comment suggested is the methodology Western proposed in the initial MSTR presentation which would have had all customers converging to an MSTR in the fifth year. This methodology resulted in a risk of increased costs to some customers. The comments received at that time correctly noted that any MSTR method that eliminates pancaking presents a risk of cost increases. However, MSTR could help mitigate this risk by freeing up additional capacity for sale. *Comment:* Several comments suggested that Western abandon this proposal because the risks outweigh the benefits. *Response:* After careful consideration of all comments, Western is withdrawing the proposal for a firm point-to-point MSTR rate at this time. Availability of Information All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents that Western initiates or uses to develop the proposed rates are available for inspection and copying at the Desert Southwest Customer Service Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, located at 615 South 43rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona. Many of these documents and supporting information are also available on Western's Web site at *http://www.wapa.gov/dsw/pwrmkt/MSTRP/MSTRP.htm.* Regulatory Procedure Requirements Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. This action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property. Environmental Compliance In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Determination Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure. Dated: November 9, 2005. Michael S. Hacskaylo, Administrator. [FR Doc. E5-6572 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Western Area Power Administration Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division—Rate Order No. WAPA-126 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-126 and Rate Schedules P-SED-F8 and P-SED-FP8, placing firm power and firm peaking power rates from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division (P-SMBP—ED) 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 expense, and repay power investment and irrigation aid, within the allowable periods. DATES: Rate Schedules P-SED-F8 and P-SED-FP8 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 rate schedules in effect on a final basis ending December 31, 2010, or until the rate schedules are superseded. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert J. Harris, Regional Manager, Upper Great Plains Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101- 1266, telephone

(406)247-7405, e-mail *rharris@wapa.gov* , or Mr. Jon R. Horst, Rates Manager, Upper Great Plains Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, Billings, MT 59101-1266, telephone

(406)247-7444, e-mail *horst@wapa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Deputy Secretary of Energy approved existing Rate Schedules P-SED-F7 and P-SED-FP7 for P-SMBP—ED firm power service and firm peaking power service on December 24, 2003 (Rate Order No. WAPA-110, 69 FR 649, January 6, 2004). The Commission confirmed and approved the rate schedules on December 23, 2004, in FERC Docket No. EF04-5031-000 (109 FERC 62,234). The existing rate schedules are effective from February 1, 2004, through December 31, 2008. The P-SMBP—ED firm power and firm peaking power rates must be increased due to the economic impact of the drought, increased operation and maintenance and other annual expenses, increased investments, and increased interest expense associated with deficits. The studies have also been adjusted to account for calendar year implementation versus a fiscal year implementation. The existing firm power Rate Schedule is being superseded by Rate Schedule P-SED-F8. Under Rate Schedule P-SED-F7, the energy charge is 9.62 mills per kilowatthour (mills/kWh), and the capacity charge is $3.72 per kilowattmonth (kWmonth). The composite rate is 16.51 mills/kWh. The provisional rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power are being implemented in two steps. The first step of the provisional firm power rates consists of an energy charge of 10.69 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $4.20 per kWmonth. The first step of the provisional rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power in Rate Schedule P-SED-F8 will result in an overall composite rate of 18.47 mills/kWh on January 1, 2006, and will result in an increase of about 11.9 percent when compared with the existing P-SMBP—ED firm power rates under Rate Schedule P-SED-F7. The second step of the provisional firm power rates consists of an energy charge of 11.29 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $4.45 per kWmonth. The second step of the provisional rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power in Rate Schedule P-SED-F8 will result in an overall composite rate of 19.54 mills/kWh on January 1, 2007, and will result in an increase of about 5.8 percent, with a total compounded increase after both steps of about 18.4 percent. The existing firm peaking power Rate Schedule is being superseded by Rate Schedule P-SED-FP8. Under Rate Schedule P-SED-FP7, the firm peaking energy charge is 9.62 mills/kWh, and the firm peaking capacity charge is $3.72 per kWmonth. The first step of the provisional rates consists of an energy charge of 10.69 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $4.20 per kWmonth on January 1, 2006. The second step of the provisional rates consists of an energy charge of 11.29 mills/kWh and a capacity charge of $4.45 per kWmonth on January 1, 2007. The new rates will be higher than the existing rates, primarily due to increased purchased power and deferred annual expenses (deficits) associated with extended drought conditions. The proposed increase is more than 18 percent, which, combined with the recent rate increase in 2004, will result in a total increase in excess of 37 percent by 2007. Incorporating these costs in the current Power Repayment Study confirms that existing rates do not provide enough revenue to repay irrigation assistance for Bureau of Reclamation Projects in future years. To meet Cost Recovery Criteria outlined in DOE Order RA 6120.2, a revised study and rate adjustment has been developed to demonstrate that sufficient revenues will be collected to meet future obligations. The proposed rates will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and meet required investment repayment within the allowable periods outlined in DOE Order RA 6120.2 and applicable legislation. Implementing the increase in two steps helps mitigate the financial impact of a single larger rate adjustment. 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

(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 Commission. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985. Acronyms and Definitions As used in this Rate Order, the following acronyms and definitions apply: *Administrator:* The Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration. *Capacity:* The electric capability of a generator, transformer, transmission circuit, or other equipment. It is expressed in kW. *Capacity Charge:* The rate which sets forth the charges for capacity. It is expressed in $ per kWmonth. *Commission:* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. *Composite Rate:* The rate for commercial firm power which is the total annual revenue requirement for capacity and energy divided by the total annual energy sales. It is expressed in mills/kWh and used for comparison purposes. *Corps:* United States Army Corps of Engineers. *CROD:* Contract rate of delivery. The maximum amount of capacity made available to a preference customer for a period specified under a contract. *Customer:* An entity with a contract that is receiving service from Western's Upper Great Plains Region. *Deficits:* Deferred or unrecovered annual expenses. *DOE:* United States Department of Energy. *DOE Order RA 6120.2:* An order outlining with power marketing administration financial reporting and ratemaking procedures. *Energy:* Measured in terms of the work it is capable of doing over a period of time. It is expressed in kilowatthours. *Energy Charge:* The rate which sets forth the charges for energy. It is expressed in mills per kilowatthour and applied to each killowatthour delivered to each customer. *FERC:* Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (to be used when referencing Commission Orders). *Firm:* A type of product and/or service available at the time requested by the customer. *FRN:* **Federal Register** notice. *Fry-Ark:* Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. *FY:* Fiscal year; October 1 to September 30. *Interior:* United States Department of the Interior. *kW:* Kilowatt—the electrical unit of capacity that equals 1,000 watts. *kWh:* Kilowatthour—the electrical unit of energy that equals 1,000 watts in 1 hour. *kWmonth:* Kilowattmonth—the electrical unit of the monthly amount of capacity. *LAP:* Loveland Area Projects. *Load Factor:* The ratio of average load in kW supplied during a designated period to the peak or maximum load in kW occurring in that period. *mills/kWh:* Mills per kilowatthour—the unit of charge for energy (equal to one tenth of a cent or one thousandth of a dollar.) *MW:* Megawatt—the electrical unit of capacity that equals 1 million watts or 1,000 kilowatts. *NEPA:* National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ). *O&M:* Operation and Maintenance. *P-SMBP:* The Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program *P-SMBP—ED:* Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division *P-SMBP—WD:* Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Western Division *Power:* Capacity and energy. *Power Factor:* The ratio of real to apparent power at any given point and time in an electrical circuit. Generally it is expressed as a percentage ratio. *Preference:* The requirements of Reclamation Law which provide that preference in the sale of Federal power shall be given to municipalities and other public corporations or agencies and also to cooperatives and other nonprofit organizations financed in whole or in part by loans made under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (Reclamation Project Act of 1939, section 9(c), 43 U.S.C. 485h(c)). *Provisional Rate:* A rate which has been confirmed, approved and placed into effect on an interim basis by the Deputy Secretary. *PRS:* Power Repayment Study. *Rate Brochure:* A document explaining the rationale and background for the rate proposal contained in this Rate Order dated June 2005. *Reclamation:* United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. *Reclamation Law:* A series of Federal laws. Viewed as a whole, these laws create the originating framework under which Western markets power. *Revenue Requirement:* The revenue required to recover annual expenses (such as O&M, purchase power, transmission service expenses, interest and deferred expenses) and repay Federal investments and other assigned costs. *RMR:* The Rocky Mountain Customer Service Region of Western. *UGPR:* The Upper Great Plains Customer Service Region of Western. *Western:* United States Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration. Effective Date The new provisional rates will take effect on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2006, and will remain in effect until December 31, 2010, pending approval by the Commission on a final basis. Public Notice and Comment Western followed the Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions, 10 CFR part 903, in developing these rates. The steps Western took to involve interested parties in the rate process were: 1. The proposed rate adjustment process began April 19, 2005, when Western mailed a notice announcing informal customer meetings to all P-SMBP—ED customers and interested parties. The meetings were held on May 10, 2005, in Denver, Colorado, and on May 11, 2005, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. At these informal meetings, Western explained the rationale for the rate adjustment, presented rate designs and methodologies, and answered questions. 2. An FRN was published on June 16, 2005 (70 FR 35080) that announced the proposed rates for P-SMBP—ED, began a public consultation and comment period, and announced the public information and public comment forums. 3. On June 17, 2005, Western's UGPR mailed letters to all P-SMBP—ED preference customers and interested parties transmitting the FRN published on June 16, 2005. 4. On July 19, 2005, beginning at 10 a.m. (MDT), Western held a public information forum at the Radisson Stapleton Plaza in Denver, Colorado. On July 20, 2005, beginning at 8 a.m. (CDT), a second public information forum was held at Peru State College in Lincoln, Nebraska. On July 20, 2005, beginning at 2 p.m. (CDT), a third public information forum was held at the Sheraton Hotel and Convention Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. On July 21, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m. (CDT), a fourth public information forum was held at the Doublewood Inn in Fargo, North Dakota. Western provided detailed explanations of the proposed rates for P-SMBP—ED, and a list of issues that could change the proposed rates. Western also answered questions and gave notice that more information was available in the rate brochure. 5. On August 16, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m. (MDT), Western held a comment forum at the Radisson Stapleton Plaza in Denver, Colorado, to give the public an opportunity to comment for the record. No oral or written comments were received at this forum. On August 17, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m. (CDT), a second public comment forum was held at the Sheraton Hotel and Convention Center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to give the public an opportunity to comment for the record. Ten oral comments were received at this forum. 6. Western received 92 comment letters and 21 verbal comments from 94 entities during the consultation and comment period, which ended September 14, 2005. All formally submitted comments have been considered in preparing this Rate Order. 7. Western's UGPR provided a Web site with all of the letters, time frames, dates and locations of forums, documents discussed at the information meetings, FRNs, and all other information about this rate process for easy customer access. The Web site is located at *http://www.wapa.gov/ugp/rates/2006FirmRateAdj* . Comments Written comments were received from the following organizations: Atlantic Municipal Utilities, Iowa Basin Electric Power Cooperative, North Dakota Breckenridge Public Utilities, Minnesota Brown County Rural Electrical Association, Minnesota Capital Electric Cooperative, Inc., North Dakota Central Iowa Power Cooperative, Iowa Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc., North Dakota City of Adrian, Minnesota City of Akron, Iowa City of Arlington, South Dakota City of Auburn, Nebraska City of Aurora, South Dakota City of Benson, Minnesota City of Big Stone City, South Dakota City of Burke, South Dakota City of Colman, South Dakota City of Detroit Lakes, Minnesota City of Estelline, South Dakota City of Faith, South Dakota City of Flandreau, South Dakota City of Fort Pierre, South Dakota City of Groton, South Dakota City of Hawarden, Iowa City of Howard, South Dakota City of Jackson, Minnesota City of Lakota, North Dakota City of Luverne, Minnesota City of Madison, South Dakota City of McLaughlin, South Dakota City of Melrose, Minnesota City of Northwood, North Dakota City of Orange City, Iowa City of Parker, South Dakota City of Paullina, Iowa City of Pierre, South Dakota City of Plankinton, South Dakota City of Sioux Center, Iowa City of Staples, Minnesota City of Tyndall, South Dakota City of Vermillion, South Dakota City of Wadena, Minnesota City of Watertown, South Dakota City of Wessington Springs, South Dakota City of White, South Dakota City of Winner, South Dakota Corn Belt Power Cooperative, Iowa Dakota State University, South Dakota Dawson Public Power District, Nebraska East River Electric Power Cooperative, South Dakota Federated Rural Electric, Minnesota Hartley Municipal Utilities, Iowa Heartland Consumers Power District, South Dakota Lake Region Electric Cooperative, Minnesota Lincoln Electric System, Nebraska Manilla Municipal Utilities, Iowa Marshall Municipal Utilities, Minnesota McLeod Cooperative Power, Minnesota Meeker Cooperative, Minnesota Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, Colorado Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., North Dakota Missouri River Energy Services, South Dakota Moorhead Public Service, Minnesota Municipal Energy Agency of Nebraska, Nebraska Nebraska Public Power District, Nebraska Nobles Cooperative Electric, Minnesota Northwest Iowa Power Cooperative, Iowa Powder River Energy Corporation, Wyoming Renville Sibley Cooperative Power Association, Minnesota Rock Rapids Utilities, Iowa Sanborn Municipal Light Plant, Iowa Sauk Centre Public Utilities Commission, Minnesota Sioux Valley Energy, South Dakota Slope Electric Cooperative, Inc., North Dakota South Dakota Municipal Electric Association, South Dakota South Dakota Rural Electric Association State of Montana-Department of Natural Resources and Conservation State of South Dakota-Black Hills State University State of South Dakota-Board of Regents State of South Dakota-Bureau of Administration State of South Dakota-Department of Corrections State of South Dakota-Developmental Center/Redfield State of South Dakota-Human Services Center State of South Dakota-Mike Durfee State Prison State of South Dakota-Northern State University State of South Dakota-School of Mines and Technology State of South Dakota-South Dakota State Penitentiary State of South Dakota-South Dakota State University Town of Pickstown, South Dakota Town of Langford, South Dakota Valley City Public Works, North Dakota Valley Electric Cooperative, Montana Woodbine Municipal Utilities, Iowa Representatives of the following organizations made oral comments: Basin Electric Power Cooperative, North Dakota City of Barnesville, Minnesota. City of Harlan, Iowa City of Wadena, Minnesota East River Electric Power Cooperative Inc., South Dakota Federated Rural Electric, Minnesota Lake Region Electric Cooperative, Minnesota Lincoln Electric System, Nebraska Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, Colorado Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc., North Dakota Missouri River Energy Services, South Dakota Moorhead Public Service, Minnesota Nebraska Public Power District, Nebraska Valley City Public Works, North Dakota Project Description The P-SMBP was authorized by Congress in section 9 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, commonly referred to as the 1944 Flood Control Act. The multipurpose program provides flood control, irrigation, navigation, recreation, preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife, and power generation. Multipurpose projects have been developed on the Missouri River and its tributaries in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. In addition to the multipurpose water projects authorized by section 9 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, certain other existing projects have been integrated with the P-SMBP for power marketing, operation and repayment purposes. The Colorado-Big Thompson, Kendrick and Shoshone Projects were combined with the P-SMBP in 1954, followed by the North Platte Project in 1959. These projects are referred to as the “Integrated Projects” of the P-SMBP. The Flood Control Act of 1944 also authorized the inclusion of the Fort Peck Project with the P-SMBP for operation and repayment purposes. The Riverton Project was integrated with the P-SMBP in 1954, and in 1970 was reauthorized as a unit of P-SMBP. The P-SMBP is administered by two regions. The UGPR with a regional office in Billings, Montana, markets power from the Eastern Division of P-SMBP, and the RMR with a regional office in Loveland, Colorado, markets the Western Division power of P-SMBP. The UGPR markets power in western Iowa, Minnesota, Montana east of the Continental Divide, North Dakota, South Dakota and the eastern two-thirds of Nebraska. The RMR markets P-SMBP power and Fry-Ark power, which in combination with P-SMBP—WD is known as LAP power, in northeastern Colorado, east of the Continental Divide in Wyoming, west of the 101st meridian in Nebraska and northern Kansas. The P-SMBP power is marketed to approximately 300 firm power customers by the UGPR and approximately 40 firm power customers by the RMR. Power Repayment Study—Firm Power Rate Western prepares a PRS each FY to determine if revenues will be sufficient to repay, within the required time, all costs assigned to the P-SMBP revenues. Repayment criteria are based on law, policies including DOE Order RA 6120.2, and authorizing legislation. To meet Cost Recovery Criteria outlined in DOE Order RA 6120.2, a revised study and rate adjustment has been developed to demonstrate that sufficient revenues will be collected to meet future obligations. Under this adjustment, payments toward irrigation assistance and capital debt are necessary before deficits are completely repaid. Traditionally, prepayment of irrigation assistance or capital is only done in the absence of deficits. However, if all revenue were applied toward deficits prior to making any payments for irrigation and other capital requirements, an extraordinarily large rate increase to meet single year repayment obligations would be required. Once these single year repayment obligations were satisfied, another rate adjustment would be necessary to decrease the rates. While repayment of capital debt and irrigation assistance prior to complete repayment of deficits is not typical, the approach approved within this Rate Order is well within the bounds of the discretion allowed under DOE Order RA 6120.2. Under this adjustment, Western will repay all deficits and also make previously planned payments for irrigation assistance and other investments that are due in the years 2013 and 2014. Prepaying irrigation and capital investments has been part of the Pick-Sloan repayment plans and approved rate adjustments for the past 20 years. They are an integral part of the long-term plan for the project and have provided rate stability for consumers while meeting Federal repayment obligations. Modest irrigation and investment payments for a brief period of 2 to 3 years will reduce the single-year revenue requirement for irrigation assistance and hold increases to the “lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles,” as outlined in section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. The provisional rates for P-SMBP—ED will be implemented in two steps. First step provisional rates are to become effective on an interim basis on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2006. Second step provisional rates are to become effective on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2007. Under Rate Schedule P-SED-F8, the first and second step provisional rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power will result in a total compounded composite rate increase of approximately 18.4 percent. The current composite rate under Rate Schedule P-SED-F7 is 16.51 mills/kWh. The provisional composite rate is 19.54 mills/kWh. Existing and Provisional Rates A comparison of the existing and provisional firm power and firm peaking power rates follow: Comparison of Existing and Provisional Rates Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division Firm electric service Existing rates First step rates Jan. 1, 2006 Percent change Second step rates Jan. 1, 2007 Percent change P-SMBP—ED Revenue Requirement $160.1 million $179.4 million 12.1 $189.9 million 5.9 P-SMBP—ED Composite Rate 16.51 mills/kWh 18.47 mills/kWh 11.9 19.54 mills/kWh 5.8 Firm Capacity $3.72/kWmonth $4.20/kWmonth 12.9 $4.45/kWmonth 6.0 Firm Energy 9.62 mills/kWh 10.69 mills/kWh 11.1 11.29 mills/kWh 5.6 Tiered > 60 Percent Load Factor 5.21 mills/kWh 5.21 mills/kWh 0.0 5.21 mills/kWh 0.0 Firm Peaking Capacity $3.72/kWmonth $4.20/kWmonth 12.9 $4.45/kWmonth 6.0 Firm Peaking Energy 1 9.62 mills/kWh 10.69 mills/kWh 11.1 11.29 mills/kWh 5.6 1 Firm Peaking Energy is normally returned. This rate will be assessed in the event Firm Peaking Energy is not returned. Western Division The LAP rate will be designed to cover the P-SMBP—WD revenue requirement for the P-SMBP and the revenue requirement for Fry-Ark. The adjustment to the LAP rate is a separate formal rate process which is documented in Rate Order No. WAPA-125. Rate Order No. WAPA-125 is also scheduled to go into effect on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on January 1, 2006. Certification of Rates Western's Administrator certified that the provisional rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power and firm peaking power rates are the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. The provisional rates were developed following administrative policies and applicable laws. P-SMBP—ED Firm Power Rate Discussion According to Reclamation Law, Western must establish power rates sufficient to recover operation, maintenance, purchased power and interest expenses and repay power investment and irrigation aid. The P-SMBP—ED firm power and firm peaking power rates must be increased due to the economic impact of the drought, increased O&M and other annual expenses, increased investments, and increased interest expense associated with deficits. The studies have also been adjusted to account for calendar year implementation versus a fiscal year implementation. The existing rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power and firm peaking power under Rate Schedules P-SED-F7 and P-SED-FP7 expire December 31, 2008. Effective January 1, 2006, Rate Schedules P-SED-F7 and P-SED-FP7 will be superseded by the new rates in Rate Schedule P-SED-F8s and Rate Schedule P-SED-FP8. The provisional rates for P-SED-F8 firm power consist of a capacity charge and an energy charge. The provisional capacity charge is $4.45/kWmonth, and the provisional energy charge is 11.29 mills/kWh. Statement of Revenue and Related Expenses The following table provides a summary of projected revenue and expense data for the P-SMBP—ED firm power rate through the 5-year provisional rate approval period. P-SMBP—ED Firm Power Comparison of 5-Year Rate Period (FY 2006-FY 2010) Total Revenues and Expenses Existing rate ($000) Proposed rate ($000) Difference ($000) Total Revenues $1,497,654 $1,694,242 $196,588 *Revenue Distribution* Expenses: O&M 762,873 832,279 69,406 Purchased Power and Wheeling 60,882 276,203 215,320 Integrated Projects Requirements 0 0 0 Interest 435,196 482,809 47,613 Transmission 67,063 70,537 3,474 Total Expenses 1,326,014 1,661,827 335,813 Principal Payments: Capitalized Expenses 169,152 30,764 (138,388) Original Project and Additions 1 1,128 1,128 0 Replacements 1 1,360 523

(837)Irrigation 0 0 0 Total Principal Payments 171,641 32,416 (139,225) Total Revenue Distribution 1,497,654 1,694,242 196,588 1 Due to the deficit or near-deficit conditions between 1999 and 2007, revenues generated in the cost evaluation period are applied toward repayment of deficits rather than repayment of project, additions and replacements. All deficits are projected to be repaid by 2017. Basis for Rate Development The existing rates for P-SMBP—ED firm power in Rate Schedule P-SED-F7 expire December 31, 2008. The existing rates no longer provide sufficient revenues to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay investment and irrigation aid within the allowable period. The adjusted rates reflect increases due to the economic impact of the drought, increased O&M and other annual expenses, increased investments, and increased interest expense associated with deficits. The studies have also been adjusted to account for calendar year implementation versus fiscal year implementation. The provisional rates will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay power investment and irrigation aid within the allowable periods. The provisional rates will take effect on January 1, 2006, to correspond with the start of the calendar year, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2010. The P-SMBP—ED provisional firm power rate is designed to recover 50 percent of the revenue requirement from the capacity rate and 50 percent from the energy rate. The capacity rate of $4.45 per kWmonth is calculated by dividing 50 percent of the total annual revenue by the number of billing units (kWmonths) in a year. The energy rate of 11.29 mills/kWh is calculated by dividing 50 percent of the total annual revenue requirement by the annual energy sales. The capacity rate is applied to both firm power and firm peaking power. The energy rate is applied to firm energy and firm peaking energy that is not returned to Western. The P-SMBP—ED firm peaking rate is equal to the capacity charge for the firm power rate. The firm peaking customer pays the capacity rate on their total firm peaking CROD each month rather than firm peaking delivered each month. Contract terms vary among firm peaking customers with respect to return of peaking energy. One firm peaking customer returns all peaking energy, while the other peaking customer may pay for 20 to 40 percent of the peaking energy they use and return the rest to Western. When a firm peaking customer keeps peaking energy the rate paid is the same as the firm energy rate. Comments The comments and responses regarding the firm power rate, paraphrased for brevity when not affecting the meaning of the statement(s), are discussed below. Direct quotes from comment letters are used for clarification where necessary. A. *Comment:* Western received numerous comments that strongly supported Western's original rate adjustment proposal which included a 2-step adjustment, calendar year implementation, no change to the tiered rate, and the proposed rates. *Response:* Western appreciates the support it has received from the public for the original rate adjustment proposal. B. *Comment:* One customer commented that Western should spread this rate increase into future years to help lessen the impact to its customers. Western received one comment preferring equal increases in each of the 2 years rather than the proposed approximate two-thirds and one-third plan. *Response:* In accordance with DOE Order RA 6120.2, Western set the rate such that it is the lowest possible consistent with sound business principles. By adopting the 2-step rate adjustment, Western has spread the impact of the rate increase on the customers over a longer time. Spreading the rate increase over additional years or equal rate increases would cause the cumulative deficit to increase substantially and would not be consistent with sound business principles. C. *Comment:* During the comment period, Western received 90 written comments and 21 verbal comments concerning the proposed Peaking Power Capacity Alternative. By far, most commenters indicated that Western should not accept the Peaking Power Capacity Alternative because implementing a change in rate methodology would require a new rate design. Commenters also stated that shifting costs from firm peaking capacity customers to firm power customers is inappropriate, inequitable, and unjustified. Commenters suggested that peaking customers are getting a superior product, particularly in the summer season, to what other firm power customers are getting because they do not take as much off-peak energy, are not subject to load following scheduling limitations, and have very generous energy payback provisions or can buy high-value energy at the firm power rate. One peaking supporter commented that Western is obligated to act in the best interest of the entire customer base. Several comments stated that Western should accept the Peaking Power Capacity Alternative based on it being more equitable in distributing the costs driving the rate increase. It was stated that due to the drought Western has purchased power, both on and off peak, in every month and given the terms of the peaking contracts, it is not equitable to include all these costs in the peaking customers' rates because they do not receive energy in every month. These commenters suggested that requiring peaking customers to pay a demand charge in months of no usage penalizes these customers and significantly increases the cost of power purchased under the peaking contract. Additionally, comments state that the peaking contract load factor has decreased since the inception of the contract and is significantly lower than the firm contract load factor. One firm peaking power customer stated that the effective cost of peaking power in 2004, after return of energy to Western, was $304/MWh in the summer and $2,914/MWh in the winter season. Another firm peaking power customer stated that its average per unit cost of firm power was $17.57/MWh and the cost for peaking power was $3,750/MWh. That customer also commented it participates in the energy markets on a daily basis and understands the value of the peaking contract. It stated this cost comparison is not used to prove that firm peaking is overpriced; instead it demonstrates that the products are different. Lastly, several comments suggest that operating applications under the contract are too restrictive. *Response:* Because several customers indicated there was rate inequity between the firm peaking power product and the firm power product, Western included the Peaking Power Capacity Alternative in the Notice of Proposed Power Rates. Outlining the concerns of the peaking customers gives the public an opportunity to provide reasonable and logical documentation indicating that there is an inequity in rates charged for the firm peaking power product and the firm power product through the public process. While firm peaking power customers do receive several benefits from the firm peaking power product beyond those available to firm power product customers, Western does not recognize the firm peaking power product to be superior to the firm power product. Western does not find that comments supporting the Peaking Power Capacity Alternative provide an in-depth evaluation with supporting data to demonstrate inequities in charges between the products. To support the rate inequity between the firm power product and the peaking power product, a few comments used an energy cost analysis. In determining the true value of the firm peaking power product, Western believes it is unreasonable to focus solely on the energy component while ignoring the benefits of the capacity portion of the product. Comments supporting the Peaking Power Capacity Alternative also point to energy purchases as the majority of costs requiring the rate adjustment. They make the argument that energy purchase costs due to drought conditions are primarily associated with the firm power product and, therefore, a larger portion of the rate adjustment should be attributed to the firm power product. A thorough analysis of inequities between the firm peaking power product and the firm power product must look at the effect of energy sales as well as energy purchases. While it is true that energy purchases during a drought apply upward pressure on Western's rates, it is also true that surplus sales apply downward pressure during high water years. The comments fail to recognize that non-firm energy sales are the primary reason that both the firm peaking power product and the firm power product both enjoyed flat rates for the 10 years preceding the current drought period. Western has determined that the rate increase should be spread among both firm power and firm peaking power customers following the practice historically used. Those comments received regarding the restrictions to the operational application of the firm peaking power product are outside the scope of this rate adjustment process. However, Western is willing to look at the operational applications and review possible restrictions to ensure equity in the firm peaking power product for all firm peaking power customers through Western's normal contract administration procedures. After considering the comments, Western has determined at this time it cannot justify moving to the Firm Peaking Capacity Alternative. D. *Comment:* Western received one comment of concern that adequate long-term purchased power arrangements have not been pursued by the UGPR. *Response:* Western continues to look into long-term purchased power arrangements on a seasonal basis. However, at this time long-term purchases that are available are not the most cost beneficial method of meeting Western purchase power requirements. E. *Comment:* Western received one comment that encouraged Western to investigate ways to maximize the value of its assets, including transmission rights across neighboring systems and high-value transmission rights across constrained paths. *Response:* Western continually looks for ways to increase revenues and decrease costs, including maximizing the use of the transmission system. However, Western has determined that this particular comment is not directly related to the proposed action and is outside the scope of this rate process. Availability of Information Information about this rate adjustment, including PRSs, comments, letters, memorandums and other supporting material made or kept by Western used to develop the provisional rates, is available for public review in the Upper Great Plains Regional Office, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, Billings, Montana. Regulatory Procedure Requirements Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, *et seq.* ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property. Environmental Compliance In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, *et seq.* ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined that this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Determination Under Executive Order 12866 Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Western has determined that this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure. Submission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The provisional rates herein confirmed, approved, and placed into effect, together with supporting documents, will be submitted to the Commission for confirmation and final approval. Order In view of the foregoing and under the authority delegated to me, I confirm and approve on an interim basis, effective January 1, 2006, Rate Schedules P-SED-F8 and P-SED-FP8 for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division of the Western Area Power Administration. The rate schedules shall remain in effect on an interim basis, pending the Commission's confirmation and approval of them or substitute rates on a final basis through December 31, 2010. Dated: November 9, 2005. Clay Sell, *Deputy Secretary.* Rate Schedule P-SED-F8; (Supersedes Schedule P-SED-F7) Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska Schedule of Rates for Firm Power Service Effective First Step The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Second Step Beginning on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2010. Available Within the marketing area served by the Eastern Division of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. Applicable To the power and energy delivered to customers as firm power service. Character and Conditions of Service Alternating current, 60 hertz, three-phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points established by contract. Monthly Rate First Step *Demand Charge:* $4.20 for each kilowatt per month (kWmonth) of billing demand. *Energy Charge:* 10.69 mills for each kilowatthour

(kWh)for all energy delivered as firm power service. An additional charge of 5.21 mills/kWh, for a total of 15.90 mills/kWh, will be assessed for all energy delivered as firm power service that is in excess of a 60-percent monthly load factor and within the delivery obligations under the provisions of the power sales contract. Billing Demand The billing demand will be as defined by the power sales contract. Second Step *Demand Charge:* $4.45 for each kWmonth of billing demand. *Energy Charge:* 11.29 mills for each kWh for all energy delivered as firm power service. An additional charge of 5.21 mills/kWh for a total of 16.50 mills/kWh will be assessed for all energy delivered as firm power service that is in excess of a 60 percent monthly load factor and within the delivery obligations under the provisions of the power sales contracts. Billing Demand The billing demand will be as defined by the power sales contract. Adjustment for Character and Conditions of Service Customers who receive deliveries at transmission voltage may in some instances be eligible to receive a 5 percent discount on capacity and energy charges when facilities are provided by the customer that result in a sufficient savings to Western to justify the discount. The determination of eligibility for receipt of the voltage discount shall be exclusively vested in Western. Adjustment for Billing of Unauthorized Overruns For each billing period in which there is a contract violation involving an unauthorized overrun of the contractual firm power and/or energy obligations, such overrun shall be billed at 10 times the above rate. Adjustment for Power Factor None. The customer will be required to maintain a power factor at the point of delivery between 95 percent lagging and 95 percent leading. Schedule of Rates for Firm Peaking Power Service Effective First Step The first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2006. Second Step Beginning on the first day of the first full billing period beginning on or after January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2010. Available Within the marketing area served by the Eastern Division of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, to our customers with generating resources enabling them to use firm peaking power service. Applicable To the power sold to customers as firm peaking power service. Character and Conditions of Service Alternating current, 60 hertz, three-phase, delivered and metered at the voltages and points established by contract. Monthly Rate First Step *Demand Charge:* $4.20 for each kilowatt per month (kWmonth) of the effective contract rate of delivery for peaking power or the maximum amount scheduled, whichever is greater. *Energy Charge:* 10.69 mills for each kilowatthour

(kWh)for all energy scheduled for delivery without return. Billing Demand The billing demand will be the greater of: 1. The highest 30 minute integrated demand measured during the month up to, but not in excess of, the delivery obligation under the power sales contract, or 2. The contract rate of delivery. Second Step *Demand Charge:* $4.45 for each kWmonth of the effective contract rate of delivery for peaking power or the maximum amount scheduled, whichever is greater. *Energy Charge:* 11.29 mills for each kWh for all energy scheduled for delivery without return. Billing Demand The billing demand will be the greater of: 1. The highest 30 minute integrated demand measured during the month up to, but not in excess of, the delivery obligation under the power sales contract, or 2. The Contract Rate of Delivery. Adjustment for Billing for Unauthorized Overruns For each billing period in which there is a contract violation involving an unauthorized overrun of the contractual obligation for peaking capacity and/or energy, such overrun shall be billed at 10 times the above rate. [FR Doc. E5-6576 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP-2005-0087; FRL-8003-1] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement of Unregistered Pesticides, EPA ICR Number 0161.10, OMB Control Number 2070-0027 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces the submission of an Information Collection Request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval and provides an additional public review and comment opportunity. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2006. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 28, 2005. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OPP-2005-0087, to

(1)EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathanael R. Martin, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, 7506C, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-305-6475; fax number: 703-305-5884; e-mail address: *martin.nathanael@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 20, 2005, (70 FR 20540), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one comment which is addressed in the supporting statement. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPP-2005-0087, which is available for viewing online at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* , or in person at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs Docket, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is

(703)305-5805. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket go to *www.epa.gov/edocket.* *Title:* Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement of Unregistered Pesticides. *ICR Numbers:* EPA ICR Number 0161.10, OMB Control Number 2070-0027. *Abstract:* This information collection program is designed to enable EPA to provide notice to foreign purchasers of unregistered pesticides exported from the United States that the pesticide product cannot be sold in the United States. Section 17(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires an exporter of any pesticide not registered under FIFRA section 3 or sold under FIFRA section 6(a)(1) to obtain a signed statement from the foreign purchaser acknowledging that the purchaser is aware that the pesticide is not registered for use in, and cannot be sold in, the United States. A copy of this statement must be transmitted to an appropriate official of the government in the importing country. The purpose of the purchaser acknowledgment statement requirement is to notify the government of the importing country that a pesticide judged hazardous to human health or the environment, or for which no such hazard assessment has been made, will be imported into that country. This information is submitted in the form of annual or per-shipment statements to EPA, which maintains original records and transmits copies thereof to appropriate government officials of the countries which are importing the pesticide. *Burden Statement:* Under the PRA, “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. For this collection it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized in this notice. The annual public burden for this ICR is estimated to be 24,700. The following is a summary of the estimates taken from the ICR: *Respondents/Affected Entities:* All exporters of unregistered pesticides. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,500. *Frequency of Response:* Annual or per-shipment. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 24,700. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost:* $2,134,400. *Changes in the Estimates:* The total annual respondent burden cost for this ICR is estimated to be $2,134,400, an increase of $232,000 over the present ICR. This slight increase in respondent burden cost is due to adjustments in labor rates. Dated: October 3, 2005. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E5-6589 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [RCRA-2005-0007; FRL-8002-8] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements, and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1361.10, OMB Control Number 2050-0073 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 28, 2005. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number RCRA-2005-0007, to

(1)EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to *rcra-docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Docket, Mail Code 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shiva Garg, Office of Solid Waste, Mail Code 5302W, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:

(703)308-8459; fax number:

(703)308-8433; e-mail address: *garg.shiva@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 21, 2005 (70 FR 20748), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA-2005-0007, which is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is

(202)566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's **Federal Register** notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* . *Title:* Information Requirements for Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards, Specific Unit Requirements, and Part B Permit Application and Modification Requirements (Renewal). *Abstract:* EPA regulates the burning of hazardous waste in boilers, incinerators, and industrial furnaces

(BIFs)under 40 CFR parts 63, 264, 265, 266 and 270. This ICR describes the paperwork requirements that apply to the owners and operators of BIFs. This includes the requirements under the comparable/syngas fuel specification at 40 CFR 261.38; the general facility requirements at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265, subparts B thru H; the requirements applicable to BIF units at 40 CFR part 266; and the RCRA Part B permit application and modification requirements at 40 CFR part 270. Examples of paperwork collected under these requirements include one-time notices, certifications, waste analysis data, inspection and monitoring records, plans reports, RCRA Part B permit applications and modifications. The responses to the collection of information are mandatory. EPA needs this information for the proper implementation, compliance tracking, and fulfillment of the congressionally delegated mandate under RCRA to protect public health and the environment. EPA, however, has taken steps to minimize the burden imposed on the facilities, and ensures the confidentiality of the provided information by complying with section 3007(b) of RCRA, Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular #108. Based on information from the EPA Regions, we estimated at last renewal of this ICR that 91 BIF facilities are subject to the RCRA hazardous waste program. Of these, we estimate that 32 BIFs are currently under interim status and the remaining 59 are in permitted status. This renewal takes into account the current universe of the BIF facilities, and the current regulations applicable to them based on the amendments made to date. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2,626 hours per facility. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Business or other for-profit entities. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 91. *Frequency of Response:* Varies (from on-occasion to annually). *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 238,997 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $33,665,000, includes $ 7,855,000 annualized capital/ startup cost, $9,880,000 annual O&M costs and $15,930,000 annual labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is a decrease of 68,952 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is the result of a program change of 50,188 hours due to the transitioning of burden into another ICR (#1773.08, OMB Control Number 2050-0171) as a result of the newly promulgated MACT rule under the Clean Air Act, and an adjustment of 18,764 hours due to a change in the respondent universe. Dated: November 16, 2005. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E5-6590 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OW-2005-0006, FRL-8002-9] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Willingness To Pay Survey for Section 316(b) Phase III Cooling Water Intake Structures: Instrument, Pre-Test, and Implementation; EPA ICR Number 2155.02 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 28, 2005. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number OW-2005-0006, to

(1)EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to *ow-docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, EPA West, Mail Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Helm, Office of Science and Technology, Mail Code 4303T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1066; fax number: 202-566-1054; e-mail address: *helm.erik@epamail.epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 9, 2005, (70 FR 33746), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA has addressed the comments received. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OW-2005-0006, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is

(202)566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's **Federal Register** notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* . *Title:* Willingness to Pay Survey for section 316(b) Phase III Cooling Water Intake Structures: Instrument, Pre-test, and Implementation *Abstract:* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of developing new regulations to provide national performance standards for controlling impacts from cooling water intake structures

(CWIS)for Phase III facilities under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Phase III under Clean Water Act section 316(b) regulations applies to facilities that withdraw water for cooling purposes from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other waters of the United States, and that are either existing electrical generators with cooling water intake structures that are designed to withdraw 50 million gallons of water per day

(MGD)or less, or existing manufacturing and industrial facilities. The regulation also establishes section 316(b) requirements for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. EPA has previously published final section 316(b) regulations that address new facilities (Phase I) on December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65256) and existing large power producers (Phase II) on July 9, 2004 (69 FR 41576). See 40 CFR part 125, subparts I and J, respectively. As required under Executive Order 12866, EPA is conducting economic impact and cost-benefit analyses for the section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities. Comprehensive, estimates of total resource value include both use and non-use values, such that the resulting total social benefit estimates may be compared to total social cost. Many public comments on the proposed section 316(b) regulation for Phase II facilities and the Phase II Notice of Data Availability suggested that a properly designed and conducted stated preference, or contingent valuation (CV), survey would be the most appropriate and acceptable method to estimate the non-use benefits of the rule. Stated preference survey methodology is the generally accepted means to estimate non-use values. To assess public policy significance or importance of the ecological gains from the section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities, EPA proposes to conduct a stated preference study to measure non-use benefits of reduced fish losses at CWIS due to the regulation. The survey will ask respondents to choose how they would vote, if presented with two different hypothetical regulatory options characterized by

(a)changes in annual impingement and entrainment losses of fish and other organisms,

(b)effects on long-term fish populations,

(c)effects on recreational and commercial catch, and

(d)an unavoidable cost of living increase for the respondent's household. Respondents will be allowed to “vote” for one of the presented regulatory options, or to choose not to vote for either option. The survey will also ask respondents to answer questions about their reasons for voting, their level of concern about various policy issues, and their affiliations and recreational activities. Survey subjects will be randomly selected from a representative national panel of respondents maintained by Knowledge Networks, an online survey company. Subjects will be asked to complete a web-based questionnaire. Participation in the survey is voluntary. Additionally, EPA will conduct non-response follow-up interviews with 600 individuals, and will use statistical techniques to correct for unobserved heterogeneity in the survey data. To assist in the development of this stated preference survey, EPA previously obtained approval from the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a series of twelve focus groups with a total of 96 respondents (see EPA ICR number 2155.01, OMB number 2040-0262. EPA received several comments on the proposed ICR for this survey. Many comments provided specific reasons why the survey might overestimate or underestimate willingness to pay to prevent fish losses. Almost all of these comments have been addressed through the focus groups and cognitive interviews, which have helped the Agency to improve the survey. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 41 minutes per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Individuals greater than 18 years of age/households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5,000. *Frequency of Response:* Once. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 3,383 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $59,919. EPA estimates that there will be no capital or O&M costs. Dated: November 16, 2005. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E5-6591 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OECA-2005-0017; FRL-8002-7] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 0664.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0006 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(1)EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to *docket.oeca@epa.gov* , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(202)564-7027; fax number:

(202)564-0050; e-mail address: *malave.maria@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24020), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0017, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is:

(202)566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search”, then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's **Federal Register** notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to *www.epa.gov/edocket* . *Title:* NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals (Renewal). *Abstract:* The New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS)were proposed on December 17, 1980 and promulgated on August 18, 1983, and amended on December 22, 1983. These standards apply to the total of all loading racks at bulk gasoline terminals that deliver liquid product into gasoline tank trucks and for which construction, modification or reconstruction commenced after the date of proposal. A bulk gasoline terminal is any gasoline facility that receives gasoline by pipeline, ship or barge, and has a gasoline throughput greater than 75,700 liters per day. The affected facility includes the loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other piping and valves necessary to fill delivery tank trucks. Volatile organic chemicals

(VOCs)are the pollutants regulated under this subpart. Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make the following one-time-only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility that may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the date of the initial performance test; and the results of the initial performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports and records are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS. Monitoring requirements specific to bulk gasoline terminals are listed in 40 CFR 60.505. These requirements consist of identifying and documenting vapor tightness for each gasoline tank truck that is loaded at the affected facility, and notifying the owner or operator of each tank truck that is not vapor-tight. The owner or operator must also perform a monthly visual inspection for liquid or vapor leaks, and maintain records of these inspections at the facility. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart XX. Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part will maintain a file of these records, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such records. The reporting requirements for this industry currently include only the initial notifications and initial performance test report listed above. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 329 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; to train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Bulk gasoline terminals with affected facilities including loading arms, pumps, meters, shutoff valves, relief valves, and other piping. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 40. *Frequency of Response:* Initially and on occasion. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 3,168 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* $1,062,809, which includes $0 annualized Capital expense/Startup costs, $0 annual Operation and Maintenance costs, and $1,062,809 Respondent Labor costs per year. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is an increase of 1,748 hours in the total estimated industry burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase in labor burden is due to a correction of the frequency of recording leak detection inspection data from one occurrence per year to monthly occurrences as required by the rule and the inclusion of labor hours for the management and clerical employees. The total industry cost also increased from $631,983 to $1,062,809 as a result of these changes and the use of an updated technical labor rate. Dated: November 17, 2005. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E5-6600 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OAR-2003-0034; FRL-8002-6] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Reporting Requirements Under EPA's Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership

(VAIP)(Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1867.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0411 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

(ICR)has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget

(1)EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to *a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov* , or by mail to: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Rand, Office of Atmospheric Programs, 6207J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9739; fax number: 202-343-2208; e-mail address: *rand.sally@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On August 25, 2005 (70 FR 49920), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0034, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is

(202)566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at *http://www.epa.gov/edocket* . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's **Federal Register** notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to *www.epa.gov/edocket* . *Title:* Reporting Requirements Under EPA's Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership

(VAIP)(Renewal). *Abstract:* EPA's Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership

(VAIP)was initiated in 1995 and is an important voluntary program contributing to the overall reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. This program focuses on reducing direct greenhouse gas emissions including perfluorocarbon

(PFC)and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from the production of primary aluminum. Seven of the eight U.S. producers of primary aluminum participate in this program. PFCs are very potent greenhouse gases with global warming potentials several thousand times that of carbon dioxide and they persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years. CO 2 is emitted from consumption of the carbon anode. EPA has developed this ICR to renew authorization to collect information from companies in the VAIP. Participants voluntarily agree to the following: Designating a VAIP liaison; undertaking technically feasible and cost-effective actions to reduce PFC and direct CO 2 emissions; and reporting to EPA, on an annual basis, the PFC and CO 2 emissions or production parameters use to estimate emissions. The information contained in the annual reports of VAIP members is used by EPA to assess the success of the program in achieving its goals. The information contained in the annual reports may be considered confidential business information and is maintained as such. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 98 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Primary Production of Aluminum. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 7. *Frequency of Response:* Annually. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 689. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $51,478, which includes $0 annualized capital/startup costs, $0 annual O&M costs, and $51,478 annual labor costs. *Changes in the Estimates:* There is an increase of 105 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to additional incremental effort to collect and report annual direct carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions data in addition to perfluorocarbon

(PFC)data. Direct CO 2 emissions result from the consumption of the carbon anode during the production of primary aluminum. Dated: November 16, 2005. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E5-6601 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8003-2] Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of a Science Advisory Board Workshop: Science for Valuation of EPA's Ecological Protection Decisions and Programs AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board

(SAB)is conducting a workshop on Science for Valuation of EPA's Ecological Protection Decisions and Programs. The Workshop is open to public observers, however, seating for the public is limited and available on a first-come basis to those who pre-register (see Workshop Registration Instructions, below). DATES: The SAB Workshop will be held on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m., and from 8:30 a.m. until 12 p.m. on Wednesday, December 14, 2005. ADDRESSES: The SAB Workshop will be held at the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing further information concerning this workshop should contact Ms. Marie Gernes, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone

(202)343-9975; Fax

(202)233-0643; or via e-mail at *gernes.marie@epa.gov* . General information about the EPA Science Advisory Board may be found on the SAB Web site ( *http://www.epa.gov/sab* ). *Workshop Registration Instructions:* Members of the public wishing to observe the Workshop must pre-register no later than 12 noon Eastern Time on Monday, December 5, 2005. Please pre-register via e-mail or fax to Ms. Marie Gernes (see above information), providing your name, title, organization, mailing address, phone and e-mail. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB Committee on Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems and Services (C-VPESS) is undertaking a study to assess the current state of science in this area. The SAB is convening this workshop to learn about recent developments in ecological valuation methods and better understand the potential applications and implications of these methods for valuation programs at EPA. The Workshop participants will include advisory members of the SAB, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council), their committees, and invited EPA and outside experts in valuation of ecological services. A draft Workshop agenda is posted on the SAB Web site under “Recent Additions” ( *http://www.epa.gov/sab/whatsnew.htm* ). An updated agenda will be posted prior to the Workshop. Workshop Proceedings will be made available at a date to be announced on the SAB Web site. *Accessibility:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Ms. Marie Gernes at 202-343-9975 or *gernes.marie@epa.gov* . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Ms. Gernes, preferably at least ten days prior to the workshop, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: November 18, 2005. Vanessa Vu, Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. E5-6582 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Submission for OMB Review; Final Comment Request AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. ACTION: Final notice of submission for OMB review. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gives notice that it has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget. DATES: Written comments on this notice must be submitted on or before December 28, 2005. ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice must be submitted to Carolyn Lovett, Policy Analyst, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, e-mail *Carolyn_Lovett@omb.eop.gov.* Comments also should be submitted to Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 10th Floor, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. The Acting Executive Officer will accept comments transmitted by facsmile (“FAX”) machine. The telephone number for the FAX receiver is

(202)663-4114. (This is not a toll-free-number). Only comments of six or fewer pages will be accepted via FAX transmittal. This limitation is necessary to assure access to the equipment. Receipt of FAX transmittals will not be acknowledged, except that the sender may request confirmation of receipt by calling the Executive Secretariat staff at

(202)633-4070 (voice) or

(202)663-4074 (TDD). (These are not toll-free-telephone numbers.) Copies of comments submitted by the public will be available for review at the Commission's library, room 6502, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joachim Neckere, Director, Program Research and Surveys Division, 1801 L Street, NW., Room 922, Washington, DC 20507;

(202)663-4958 (voice) or

(202)663-7063 (TDD); or Carol Miaskoff, Assistant Legal Counsel, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507;

(202)663-4637 (voice) or

(202)663-7026 (TDD). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction With this Notice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) announces that it is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), final revisions to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), after consultation with the Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The EEOC published the initial PRA Notice on June 11, 2003. *See* Agency Information Collection Activities: Revision of the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), 68 FR 34965, June 11, 2003. 1 In the initial notice, the EEOC proposed changes to the ethnic and racial categories on the EEO-1 report, and also to the job categories. Thirty-two interested parties submitted written comments, including employers, civil rights organizations, human resources and information technology professionals, and other individuals. Nine witnesses, representing some of the same parties, testified at the Commission's public hearing held on October 29, 2003, pursuant to section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The record was completed by several written comments submitted subsequent to the hearing. 1 The proposed EEO-1 Report form and the June 11, 2003 Notice can be found at: *http://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1.* History and Uses of the EEO-1 The EEOC and OFCCP, acting as the Joint Reporting committee, adopted the EEO-1 report in 1966 to collect annual data from many private employers and federal contractors about their minority and female workforce. *See* 42 U.S.C 2000e-8(c). 2 The agencies planned to use these EEO-1 data to analyze patterns of employment discrimination and to support civil rights enforcement. *See* U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity commission, “A History of the EEOC, 1965-1984.” Both agencies have used the data for enforcement. 3 OFCCP uses EEO-1 data to determine which employer facilities to select for compliance evaluations. The EEOC also uses EEO-1 data to analyze trends in female and minority employment within companies, industries, regions, and sectors of the economy. *See, e.g.,* “Women of Color: Their Employment in the Private Sector” (July 2003) at *http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/reports/womenofcolor.* 2 *See http://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1survey/whomustfile.html* (who must file EEO-1). 3 *See* Testimony of Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (stating that courts, private parties, and employers also have found EEO-1 data useful). The government's commitment to collecting and analyzing these workforce data is a concrete demonstration of its ongoing commitment to full enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The importance of EEO-1 data in describing the workforce in terms of the job placement of minorities and women was a constant factor in the consideration of these revisions. As explained in its June 11, 2003 Notice, the Commission initiated this revision in light of several developments, including the revised 1997 government-wide standards for reporting race and ethnicity, *see infra* note 5. Race and Ethnic Categories In reaching final decisions on race and ethnic categories for the revised EEO-1 report, the EEOC was guided by the need to balance three competing interests: Obtaining data that will support the EEOC and OFCCP in enforcing Title VII and Executive Order 11246; modernizing the EEO-1 to accommodate changing demographics and the government-wide Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity; 4 and limiting the burden on employers. The goal of the Commission was, of curse, to find the appropriate balance among these competing factors. 4 Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 62 FR 58782, October 30, 1997 (hereinafter “Revised Standards” or “1997 Revised Standards”). The race and ethnic categories proposed in the EEOC's June 11, 2003 Notice differ from the current EEO-1 in several respects. The revisions proposed in the June 11, 2003 Notice were as follows:

(i)Add a new racial category titled “Two or more races”;

(ii)separate “Asians” from “Pacific Islanders”;

(iii)rename “Black” as “Black or African American”;

(iv)rename “Hispanic” as “Hispanic or Latino”; and

(v)strongly encourage employers to use self-reporting rather than visual identification. The public comments to the June 11, 2003 Notice primarily focused on the Commission's strong endorsement of employee self-identification; on its adoption of the new racial category, “Two or more races”; and on the guidance for counting and reporting the number of Hispanic or Latino employees. Self-Identification The June 11, 2003 Notice proposed that employers gather data needed to complete the revised EEO-1 report by asking employees to voluntarily report their ethnicity and race. In the past, employers usually determined ethnicity and race for the EEO-1 by visual observation. The Commission's proposal meant that, for the first time, employers would be strongly encouraged to rely on employee self-identification to identify their ethnicity and race. A few public commenters were concerned about potential employee discomfort with racial and ethnic self-identification, and one public commenter questioned the legality of self-identification under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (Title VII) and Executive Order 11246, as amended. *See* Written Comments of Affirmative Action Consulting; Written Comments of Associated Industries of the Inland Northwest. On practical grounds, an employer group raised the question of whether self-identification would be required if it were not “feasible” for employers. The Equal Employment Advisory Council

(EEAC)maintained that employers should be permitted to continue determining race and ethnicity by visual observation if an employee declined to self-identify *or* in other undefined situations in which it was “unduly burdensome or otherwise not practical or feasible” to extend an invitation to self-identify. *See* Written Testimony for Hearing of Jeffrey A. Norris of EEAC. The Commission reaffirms its position that self-identification is the preferred method for gathering ethnic and racial information for the EEO-1 Report. Self-identification is key to the government's goal of understanding the increasing complexity of race in America. In the 1990s, OMB recognized that a new Federal system for reporting racial and ethnic data would need to reflect the increasing diversity of the Nation's population due to growth in immigration and interracial marriage. *See* Standards for the Classification of Federal Data and Race and Ethnicity, 59 FR 29831, June 9, 1994. The Revised Standards issued by OMB in 1997 called for the enumeration of individuals with a multiracial background in federal reports and stated that self-identification was preferred. *See* Revised Standards, *supra* note 5. 5 The Commission agrees that self-identification is necessary when Federal reports enumerate the racial and ethnic backgrounds of individuals. 5 *See also* Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 59 FR 29831, June 9, 1994 (announcing OMB's decision to review the government-wide racial and ethnic categories and indicating that one of the general principles guiding this review would be respect for individual dignity and the corresponding need to facilitate self-identification to the greatest extent possible); Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 60 FR 44674, 44679 August 28, 1995 (discussing the pros and cons of self-identification). The Commission also is convinced that self-identification for the EEO-1 report will not undermine civil rights. Self-identification for EEO-1 purposes is subject to safeguards, as described below. Legally, self-identification does not alter any of the fundamental legal standards of Title VII and Executive Order 11246, which prohibit unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity, among other bases. Employers are prohibited from using race or ethnic information to make any employment decisions that would violate Title VII and Executive Order 11246. Employers may use employment records or visual observation to gather race and ethnic data for EEO-1 purposes only when employees decline to self-identify. New Race Category: Two or More Races In its June 11, 2003 proposal, the Commission said that the EEO-1 report would require reporting of data about the number of employees who identify with. “Two or more races,” but would not require reporting of the different races with which these employees identify. Some employers conditionally supported the “Two or more races” category on the EEO-1, while also expressing concern about burden and inaccurate data. The Chamber of Commerce conditionally supported the “Two or more races” category based on coordination with OFCCP's programs under Executive Order 11246. *See* Written Comments on the Chamber of Commerce. The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), however, argued that the Commission's proposal would yield misleading data, because the numbers for specific races would be reduced due to the subtraction of those who identified as “Two or more races,” whereas the number of Hispanics or Latinos would not be reduced in this way. *See* Testimony of Cornelia Gamlem on behalf of SHRM; Written of SHRM. Based on concerns about burden, some employer representatives proposed retaining the EEO-1's current format of single race reporting. *See* Written Comments of Bank One; Written Comments of Jackson and Associate Consulting; Written Comments of Avista Corporation. Other employer groups simply argued against detailed reporting schemes for multiple races. *See e.g.,* Testimony of Jeffrey Norris of EEAC; Written Comments of EEAC; Testimony of H. Juanita M. Beecher of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments on ORC Worldwide. Finally, in light of the potential burden, one commenter questioned the utility of the category for “Two or more races,” noting that only a small number of individuals who are currently in the workforce self-identify with multiple races, based on 200 Census Data. *See* Testimony of Christopher Northup. By contrast, civil rights groups urged the Commission to adopt more detailed racial reporting, in the interests of civil rights enforcement and full compliance with OMB's Revised Standards. the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, concerned about the advancement of people of color, observed that the category of “Two or more races” would not be meaningful for affirmative action purposes under OFCCP's authority. *See* Written Testimony for Hearing of Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (read into Hearing Record by Mark Long). The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) emphasized the importance for EEO purposes of reporting full racial data about Hispanic or Latino employees and stated that the EEOC could use OMB guidance to allocate data about individuals with multiracial backgrounds into single groups as necessary. *See* Testimony of Marisa J. Demeo of MALDEF; Written Comments of MALDEF. The Commission adopts the “Two or more races” category for the final EEO-1. Detailed reporting in separate racial combinations would, at the current time, result only in a marginal enhancement of the utility of EEO-1 data for EEOC enforcement purposes. In the 2000 Census, 2.4% of respondents reported that they were in a category that would qualify as “Two or more races.” *See* Testimony of Christopher Northup. The 2.4% itself, includes several unique racial combinations; separate reporting for each racial combination would result in even smaller numbers for each one, depending on region. This marginal enhancement of EEO-O1 data does not justify, at the current time, the added burden for employers and for the government of detailed data collection and reporting. EEO-1 data about employees of “Two or more races” will be useful to the Commission to analyze national employment trends. Another central factor in the adoption of “Two or more races” is that it supports OFCCP's use of EEO-1 data. OFCCP's statistical model for selecting contractors for compliance reviews, which is designed to target employer facilities with the highest likelihood of systemic discrimination, uses aggregated “minority” and “nonminority” categories based on EEO-1 data. OFCCP's targeting system requires that EEO-1 data be reported in a format that can be easily folded into this analysis. Adoption of the “Two or more races” category will allow OFCCP to count this new category as “minority” and to continue using the current methodology with minor adjustments. The Commission intends, however, to turn to its own database of Title VII charges to identify and study those charges in which employment discrimination on the basis of more than one race is alleged. For example, the EEOC can determine the number of charges filed on the basis of more than one race, and also identify the most common racial combinations on which discrimination charges are filed, as well as the types of discrimination most often alleged by individuals with these multiracial backgrounds. When considered in conjunction with the revised EEO-1 data on “Two or More Races,” such analysis of the EEOC's charge database will help the Commission determine whether future changes in the EEO-1 are needed. Reporting Racial Data for Hispanics or Latinos The Commission's June 11, 2003 proposal did not require employers to report racial data for Hispanic or Latino employees on the revised EEO-1. In written comments and in testimony, civil rights groups urged the EEOC to change its positions and require employers to report the race of Hispanic or Latino employees. MALDEF asserted the importance of reporting full racial data about Hispanic or Latino employees. Rainbow/PUSH agreed, noting that persons of mixed heritage are more likely to face discrimination because of their African ancestry than because of the other racial or ethnic elements of their heritage. *See* Written Testimony for Hearing of Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (read into Hearing Record by Mark Long). The National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC) expressed concern that failing to report the racial breakdown of Hispanics or Latinos might artificially inflate data for Latino employees while deflating data for the racial groups. *See* Written Comments of NAPALC. An employer group, SHRM, expressed concern that failing to report the race of Hispanics or Latinos would result in skewed EEO-1 data. SHRM proposed that all employees, including Hispanics or Latinos, be asked to report the race or ethnicity with which they *primarily* identify, and also be given the option of choosing the “Two or more races” category. *See* Testimony of Cornelia Gamlem on behalf of SHRM; Written Comments of SHRM. The majority of employers, however, focused on the burden to employers of collecting, maintaining, and reporting race data about Hispanic or Latino employees (as well as detailed race data about employees who selected the “Two or more races” category). Several companies pointed out that such detailed reporting would require a complete and burdensome overhaul of their Human Resources Information Systems. *See* Written Comments of Lozier Corporation; Written Comments of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments of TOC (objecting to a “mind-boggling” number of possible combinations of data to report); Written Comments of SHRM (expressing concern about the burden of overhauling Human Resources Information Systems, in addition to its concerns about skewed data). The Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Commission's proposal for reporting ethnicity and race as a reasonable balance between governmental and private interests, based on its understanding that employers would not be required to report and analyze all ethnic and racial combinations. *See* Testimony of Kris Meade on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. The EEAC concurred with this view. *See* Testimony of Jeffrey Norris of EEAC; Written Comments of EEAC. The Commission reaffirms its decision not to require employers to report the race of employees who identify as Hispanic or Latino. For purposes of its own uses of EEO-1 data, the Commission notes that only a small percentage of the population 18 years of age and over chose to identify as both Hispanic and a racial minority group in Census 2000. 6 This suggests that requiring employers to report the race of Hispanic or Latino employees would not significantly improve the utility of EEO-1 data for enforcement purposes. Moreover, such detailed data could not easily be folded into OFCCP's system for targeting contractors for compliance review. Finally, some employers have testified regarding the burden of collecting data about the race of Hispanic or Latino employees. 6 The Commission also notes that there is uncertainty about whether Hispanics or Latinos willingly or accurately self-identify using American racial categories, when given the opportunity to do so. *See Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: Census 2000 Brief,* March 2001, page 10; *see also* , Mireya Navarro, *Going beyond Black and White, Hispanics in Census Pick ‘Other’* , The New York Times, November 9, 2003, § 1 (New York Region), at 1. Ultimately, on the EEO-1 report itself, ethnic and racial data are reported in the same fashion as before the revision; that is, for Hispanic or Latino employees, race data are not reported. The Two-Question Format There were many public comments about the Commission's June 11, 2003 proposal to use the “two-question format” to collect ethnic and racial data from employees for the EEO-1 report. The “two-question format” means that employees are first asked to report their Hispanic or Latino status and second to report the race or races they consider themselves to be. There were several objections to the “two-question format” as proposed. Many commenters objected that the Commission had “singled out” Hispanics or Latinos for different treatment. Some commenters criticized this proposal as an effort to inflate the number of Hispanics or Latinos for political purposes. Other commenters, mostly representatives of the Human Resources field, expressed concern about how to explain the two-question format to employees. Finally, after the October 2003 public hearing, employer groups urged the Commission to keep a “combined” format for the EEO-1, so that employers would only need to ask one question of employees: With which race/ethnicity do you *primarily* identify? *See* Supplemental Submissions of National Industry Liaison Group, ORC Worldwide, and EEAC. *See also* Revised Standards, 62 FR 58789 (discussing “combined” format). The Commission retains the two-question format because it has been shown to yield more accurate data about Hispanics or Latinos. This approach is part of a longstanding Federal effort to obtain accurate ethnic data. In 1976, in response to an apparent under-count of Americans of Spanish origin or descent in the 1970 Census, Congress passed Pub. L. 94-311 calling for the collection, analysis, and publication of federal statistics on persons of Spanish origin or descent. OMB issued the “Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting” shortly thereafter, adding Hispanic ethnicity to Federal reports and encouraging separate reporting of race and ethnicity. 7 In a further effort to enhance accuracy, OMB's 1997 Revised Standards recommended that Federal forms ask two questions: the first about ethnicity; and the second about race. This decision stemmed, in part, from research sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that significantly more people appropriately identified as Hispanic or Latino when they were asked separately about Hispanic or Latino origin. 8 The Commission's decision to adopt a two-question format is part of this ongoing effort to design federal reports that yield a more accurate count of Hispanics or Latinos. 9 7 Statistical Policy Directive No. 15, “Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting,” 43 FR 19269, May 4, 1978. 8 *See* Recommendations from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget Concerning Changes to the Standards for Classifications of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 62 FR 36874, July 9, 1997 (Recommendations from the Interagency Committee) Appendix 2, Chapter 4.7. 9 *See* Standards for Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 60 FR 44674, August 28, 1995, at 44678-44679; *see also* Recommendations from the Interagency Committee, Appendix 2, Chapter 4 (detailing various effects and data quality concerns stemming from the use of combined and/or separate questions on race and Hispanic origin). Data Collection: Suggested Questionnaire The EEOC's “Suggested Employee Questionnaire on Race and Ethnicity” generated extensive public comment. Several employer groups observed that the instructions for the questionnaire strongly encouraged employees to provide multiple race data in much more detail than the proposed EEO-1 required it to be reported. In the opinion of these groups, the lack of consistency between the suggested questionnaire and the revised EEO-1 race and ethnic categories could foster employee mistrust and prove to be administratively burdensome for employers. *See, e.g.,* Written Comments of EEAC; Written Comments of ORC Worldwide. Specifically, employers focused on language in the Suggested Questionnaire that first provided two separate questions for workers to self-identify their ethnicity and their race, but then informed the employees who marked “Yes” to the Hispanic question that their race would not be reported to the government. Other commenters, however, made the point that employers may need to collect data about the race of Hispanic or Latino employees for research or statistical purposes or to defend against potential EEO claims. *See, e.g.,* Written Comments of Chamber of Commerce (noting that many Chamber members commented that race information for Hispanic or Latino individuals would be beneficial for purposes of conducting voluntary internal analyses of their workforce and/or addressing potential allegations of discrimination). Employer groups made several other suggestions about language, for example, urging the Commission to emphasize the voluntary nature of the questionnaire. However, one employer group urged the Commission to make the questionnaire a mandatory government form, like the I-9. 10 *See* Supplemental Submission of ORC Worldwide. 10 U.S. employers are responsible for completion and retention of Form I-9, Employment Verification Eligibility Form, for each individual they hire for employment in the United State, including citizens and noncitizens. On the form, the employer must verify the employment eligibility and identity documents presented by the employee and record the document information. In response to these comments, the Commission will not adopt the “Suggested Employee Questionnaire on Race and Ethnicity.” Employers must, at a minimum, have the data that are necessary to complete the EEO-1 report, which lists employee ethnicity or race in a total of seven categories. The Commission notes that some employers may find it necessary for research or statistical purposes, or for self-monitoring, to collect more detailed data than needed to complete the EEO-1 report. We commend such efforts. As to the method for collecting data, the basic principles for ethnic and racial self-identification for purposes of the EEO-1 report are: 1. Offer employees the opportunity to self-identify; 2. Provide a statement about the voluntary nature of this inquiry for employees. For example, language such as the following may be used (employers may adapt this language). The employer is subject to certain governmental recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the administration of civil rights laws and regulations. In order to comply with these laws, the employer invites employees to voluntarily self-identify their race and ethnicity. Submission of this information is voluntary and refusal to provide it will not subject you to any adverse treatment. The information will be kept confidential and will only be used in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations, including those that require the information to be summarized and reported to the federal government for civil rights enforcement. When reported, data will not identify any specific individual. Job Categories The public comments and testimony about the proposed job categories focused on three main issues: Subdividing Officials and Managers into hierarchical subcategories; renumbering job categories so that Service Workers appeared earlier on the list; and adding minor, new language to the definitions of Professionals and Technicians. Subdividing Officials and Managers The Commission's June 11, 2003 proposal divided Officials and Managers into three hierarchical subcategories to gather data about the progress of women and minorities in management. The proposed subcategories, based on responsibility, general lines of reporting, and skill, were: Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers (formulate policies and set strategies); Mid Level Officials and Managers (lead major business units in implementing Executives' strategies); and First Level Officials and Managers (implement policies in daily operations and report to the Mid Level Managers). Some employer groups opposed the proposal as burdensome and unproductive. For example, the Chamber of Commerce wrote that organizations with more than three levels of management “will undoubtedly struggle with the appropriate placement for their ‘mid-level’ management,” resulting in discrepant placement for managers who do the same functions for different companies. Although the Chamber favored keeping a single category for Officials and Managers, it urged the Commission to consider two levels of management (Senior and Other) as an alternative. The EEAC urged retention of the status quo, arguing that the new subcategories would yield numbers that would be too small to support meaningful statistical analysis for each establishment. Other employer groups supported this aspect of the proposal. SHRM noted that it would result in data “permit[ing] both the government and employers a better analysis of progress or lack thereof in glass ceiling 11 initiatives.” *See* Written Comments of SHRM. The National Industry Liaison Group

(NILG)wrote that this proposal would enhance affirmative action and diversity planning and also allow “for a more precise analysis of EEO-1 trend data.” *See* Written Comments of NILG. ORC Worldwide testified that “many ORC members already report their officials and managers in this manner so the subdivision [would] not [be] seen as an additional burden.” (Referring to OFCCP's Corporate Management Review). *See* Written Testimony for Hearing of H. Juanita M. Beecher of ORC Worldwide. 11 “Glass ceiling” is a term used to describe the discriminatory, artificial barriers that hinder the advancement of women and minorities to upper level job positions. Civil rights groups supported this change. The National Partnership for Women & Families and the Women Employed Institute observed that the proposed EEO-1 would report basic data reflecting major differences in job content, wage rates and opportunities without unfairly burdening employers. *See* Written Comments of National Partnership for Women & Families and Women Employed Institute. NAPALC agreed that more detailed management data were necessary to remedy employment discrimination affecting Asians, especially given studies showing that Asians and Pacific Islanders are not enjoying upward mobility in the workforce commensurate with their high levels of education. *See* Written Comments of NAPALC. Finally, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, joined by MALDEF, commended the proposal as an opportunity to correct the overly broad categorization of “Officials and Managers” and to obtain data about racial and gender stratification occurring at or above the “glass ceiling.” *See* Testimony of Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Testimony of Marisa J. Demeo of MALDEF. The Commission continues to believe that a single category for all officials and managers is no longer acceptable. It conflates data about jobs of widely discrepant responsibility, compensation and skill, and thereby risks obscuring important trends in the employment of women and minorities. The proposal to subdivide this category is therefore consistent with increased interest in glass ceiling issues in recent years. The Commission recognizes, however, that employer groups raised legitimate concerns about the likelihood of inconsistent categorization of middle level managers who perform the same functions at different companies. We therefore adopt two subcategories of Officials and Managers: Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers; and First/Mid Level Officials and Managers. The EEO-1 Instruction Booklet includes a “Description of Job Categories” which provides significantly more detailed descriptions of the two tiers of officials and managers. These descriptions, reproduced below, should be helpful to employers in assigning official and manager positions to the appropriate subcategory: *Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers.* Individuals who plan, direct and formulate policies, set strategy and provide the overall direction of enterprises/organizations for the development and delivery of products and services, within the parameters approved by boards of directors or other governing bodies. Residing in the highest levels of organizations, these executives plan, direct, or coordinate activities with the support of subordinate executives and staff managers. They include, in larger organizations, those individuals with two reporting levels of the CEO, whose responsibilities require frequent interaction with the CEO. Examples of these kinds of managers are: Chief executive officers, chief operating officers, chief financial officers, line of business heads, presidents or executive vice presidents of functional areas or operating groups, chief information officers, chief human resources officers, chief marketing officers, chief legal officers, management directors and managing partners. *First/Mid Level Officials and Managers.* Individuals who serve as officials and managers, other than those who serve as Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers, including those who oversee and direct the delivery of products, services or functions at group, regional or divisional levels of organizations. These officials and managers receive directions from Executive/Senior Level management and typically lead major business units. They implement policies, programs and directives of Executive/Senior Level management through subordinate managers and within the parameters set by Executive/Senior Level management. Examples of these kinds of officials and managers are: Vice presidents and directors; group, regional or divisional controllers; treasurers; and human resources, information systems, marketing, and operations managers. The First/Mid Level Officials and Managers subcategory also includes those who report directly to middle managers. These individuals serve at functional, line of business segment or branch levels and are responsible for directing and executing the day-to-day operational objectives of enterprises/organizations, conveying the directions of higher level officials and managers to subordinate personnel and, in some instances, directly supervising the activities of exempt and non-exempt personnel. Examples of these kinds of officials and managers are: First-line managers; team managers; unit managers; operations and production managers; branch managers; administrative services managers; purchasing and transportation managers; storage and distribution managers; call center or customer service managers; technical support managers; and brand or product managers. As employers begin the process of assigning Official and Manager positions to the appropriate subcategories, the EEOC will remain available to provide guidance concerning any particular questions that arise. Classifying Jobs as Executive/Senior Level or First/Mid Level Officials and Managers The Commission also recognizes that commenters have valid objections to the use of the Occupational Classification Codes (OCC or Census codes) as a basis for subdividing Officials and Managers. *See, e.g.,* Testimony of Cornelia B. Gamlem on behalf of SHRM; Testimony of H. Juanita M. Beecher of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments of EEAC. After revisiting this issue, the Commission agrees that Census codes should not be used to subdivide Officials and Managers. The census codes emphasize skill and training, regardless of level of responsibility, whereas the EEO-1 job categories—especially the management subcategories—emphasize differences in responsibility and influence. For example, in categorizing a computer and information systems manager, the Census codes would place the Chief Technology Officer at a headquarters of a large corporation (who has regular interaction with the CEO) in the same category as an IT manager at a regional office (who has little if any interaction with the CEO). Instead of using Census codes, the Commission will categorize Officials and Managers based on their level of responsibility and influence in the organizational hierarchy, as described above. The intention is for each subcategory of Officials and Managers to include individuals with equivalent levels of influence and responsibility at different organizations, even though their titles may not always be the same. Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers are defined as those who plan, direct and formulate policy, set strategy and provide the overall direction of enterprises/organizations. They include, in larger organizations, those individuals within two reporting levels of the CEO, whose responsibilities require frequent interaction with the CEO. First/Mid Level Managers are defined as those who direct implementation or operations within the specific parameters established by Executive/Senior Level management, as well as those who oversee implementation of day-to-day goals. Moreover, in the past, the Officials and Managers category contained non-managerial officials with expertise in business and financial occupations. EEAC opposed the placement of these occupations within the Officials and Managers category, expressing doubt that their inclusion would improve the ability to assess the utilization of minorities and women in these activities. *See* Written Comments of EEAC. After further deliberation, EEOC concludes that in the revised ten category system, individuals in business and financial occupations should be assigned to the Professional category. Including these individuals within the Officials and Managers category makes the data on management officials less useful to EEOC in analyzing trends in mobility of minorities and women within the upper reaches of organizations. Census Occupational Codes for Job Categories Other Than Officials and Managers Some commenters and witnesses generalized their arguments against using Census occupational codes to subdivide Officials and Managers to make the broader point that Census codes should not be used to classify any jobs for the EEO-1. *See, e.g.,* Testimony of H. Juanita M. Beecher of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments of ORC Worldwide; Written Comments of Bank One. Employer groups who opposed *requiring* the us of OCC codes to classify jobs, however, noted that this information was “welcome as guidance” from the Commission. *See* Written Testimony for Hearing of H. Juanita M. Beecher of ORC Worldwide; see also Written Comments of SHRM (recommending that the suggested Census occupational classification codes be a recommendation, but not a requirement). Consultant Christopher Northup, recognizing that the Census occupational codes had been provided to guide employers, said that the codes can be “helpful and useful to employers” to classify jobs in the EEO-1 job categories other than Officials and Managers. *See* Written Testimony for Hearing of Christopher Northup. The Commission believes that the Census codes may provide useful guidance for purposes of classifying jobs for the EEO-1. The Commission will offer, as an Internet reference and resource for employers, the EEO-1 “Job Classification Guide,” providing guidance about the range of Census occupational Codes for each broad EEO-1 job category. Other Job Category Issues Commenters uniformly agreed that the proposal to renumber the EEO-1 job categories, to move Service Workers from the ninth category up to the sixth category, would not improve the quality of EEO-1 data and would only impose a burden on employers. The Commission finds the arguments persuasive and will return to the same order for EEO-1 job categories as in the previous EEO-1 reports. Additionally, although MALDEF argued in favor of formally subdividing the EEO-1 category for Service Workers into sub-groups, the Commission will retain the current structure at this time. The four subcategories mentioned in the narrative description of the Service Workers in the “Description of Job Categories”—food, cleaning, personal, and protective—were introduced to provide clarity and not to alter the reporting category itself. Some commenters inquired whether the changes to the descriptions for the Professionals and Technicians categories, as proposed in the initial June 11, 2003 notice, should change the way these jobs are reported on the EEO-1. These revisions reflect changing workforce dynamics as to the composition and number of occupations being measured but do not change reporting. For example, new jobs have been created (such as emergency medical technician) and other jobs have changed drastically (such as computer programmer). Similarly, many jobs with qualifications which, three decades ago, could be obtained through experience, now require specific educational attainment, especially those with scientific and technical components. Because the Commission is cognizant that the qualifications of certain jobs within the Professionals and Technicians categories can still be met through experience, however, that possibility is maintained in the revised descriptions. There is one alteration to the operating requirements that affects the Processional category. Individuals in business and financial occupations, previously reported in the Officials and Managers category, are assigned to the Professional category in the revised ten category system. Establishments in the State of Hawaii In response to the June 11, 2003 proposal, one commenter requested that EEOC clarify EEO-1 reporting requirements for establishments in Hawaii. *See* Written Comments of Automatic Data Processing, Inc (ADP). Under the prior EEO-1 report, establishments located in Hawaii were not required to report the race/ethnicity of employees, but were instead permitted to report employment data by gender alone. This exemption was spelled out in Section D of the prior EEO-1 Instruction Booklet. The proposed revised EEO-1 Instruction Booklet, issued in conjunction with the June 11, 2003 proposal and available on the Commission's website at *http://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1/newinstructionbooklet.html* , removes this exemption. The final revised Instruction Booklet, as adopted by the Commission, does not exempt establishments located in Hawaii. Therefore, employers will need to complete the revised EEO-1, reporting the gender, race and ethnicity of employees in each of the new job categories, for establishments located in Hawaii. Effective Date of the Revised Form The revised form will become effective with the 2007 EEO-1 reporting deadline. At the hearing, employer representatives made persuasive arguments about the need for lead time in terms of budgeting, implementing and training personnel in order to submit the revised EEO-1 Report. *See* Response of Jeffrey Norris of EEAC to Question from Commissioner Miller. Additionally, the EEOC is now processing EEO-1 data internally and itself needs time to transition to the new format. Resurveying the Workforce In an effort to minimize burden for employers during this transitional period, the Commission will not mandate that employers resurvey their workforce before submitting the first EEO-1 form in the new format. Employers should keep in mind, however, that opportunities to further resurvey without additional burden should be utilized as much and as soon as possible, for example, using routine updates of employees' personal information to obtain updated EEO-1 data. Employers also should seek self-identification of new employees under the new ethnic and racial categories as soon as possible. When covered employers start to report race and ethnic information using this new format for establishments in Hawaii, they will report “Asians” separately from “Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders”. PRA Burden Discussion Burden hours are made up of two components. First is the aggregate number of hours required to report the annual EEO-1 data. Second is a one-time estimate of total hours required for employers to implement the revised EEO-1. The Commission received several comments on its original estimate of respondent burden. Almost all the comments pertained to the estimate of the one-time burden associated with the proposed changes. Commenters believed that the Commission's estimates were too low. Annual Burden Calculation The Commission's estimate of the annual reporting hours for the proposed form used as a baseline the long-established burden hours for the current EEO-1 report, or 402,700 hours. *See infra.* The revised estimate of burden for the new EEO-1 form was calculated based on the increase in the size of the new form over the old one. In terms of matrix cells, the revised form has 1.5 times as many cells as the old one. Thus, as a first step in the calculation, the new annual burden was estimated to be about 50% higher than the current burden, or 599,000 hours. The EEOC introduced on-line filing with the 2003 EEO-1 submission. Preliminary reporting statistics show that more than 80% of reporting employers are filing on-line. An EEO-1 form filed on-line is estimated to take no more than one hour to complete, as compared to five hours for a paper form. Taking the proportion of on-line filers into account, it could be argued that the annual burden of the revised form is actually less than the estimated 599,000 hours. One-Time Implementation Burden The EEOC estimated that this on-time implementation nationwide would collectively take 572,000 hours. The Commission is estimating 3.4 hours per EEO-1 report, based on historical EEO-1 processing statistics and the Commission's own in-house estimate of the time needed to implement these revisions. The Commission recognizes that larger employers would have a larger time investment. For instance, the largest employer in the EEO-1 file has almost 4,000 establishments, and thus files the equivalent of over 4,000 EEO-1 forms. At 3.4 hours per form, the estimate for this employer to implement the new EEO-1 is over 13,000 staff hours. By contrast, for the over 14,000 employers who file one EEO-1 form each year, it would only take 3.4 hours each to implement the changes. Overview of This Information Collection *Collection Title:* Employer Information Report (EEO-1). *OMB Number:* OMB Number 3046-0007. *Frequency of Report:* Annual. *Type of Respondent:* Private industry employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal government contractors and first-tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees. *Description of Affected Public:* Private industry employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal government contractors and first tier subcontractors with 50 or more employees. The burden hours are translated into cost by multiplying the burden hours by the estimated average salary of a human resources, training, or labor relations specialist, the type of person who would most likely complete the annual EEO-1 form. Current Revised Annual Reporting Hours 402,700 599,000 Annual Respondent Cost 1 $7.7 1 $11.4 Federal Cost 1 $1.3 1 $2.1 Number of Forms 1 1 1 Million. *Abstract:* Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c)), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed and to make reports therefrom as required by the EEOC. Accordingly, the EEOC has issued regulations set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Chapter XIV, subpart B, § 1602.7 Employers in the private sector with 100 or more employees and some federal contractors with 50 or more employees have been required to submit EEO-1 reports annually since 1966. The individual reports are confidential. The EEO-1 data are used by the EEOC to investigate charges of employment discrimination against employers in private industry and to provide information about the employment status of minorities and women. The data are shared with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Department of Labor, and several other federal agencies. Pursuant to section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO-1 data are also shared with eight-six State and loyal Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs). *Burden Statement:* The estimated number of respondents included in the annual EEO-1 report survey is 45,000 private employers. The estimated average number of establishment-based responses per reporting company is between 3 and 4 EEO-1 reports annually. The annual number of responses is approximately 170,000. The revised form is estimated to impose 599,000 burden hours annually. It is also estimated that the total implementation burden for the revision for all reporters will be about 572,000 hours or about $10.9 million. 12 In order to help reduce survey burden, respondents are encouraged to report data electronically whenever possible. 12 This estimate already factors in the cost to covered employers of completing the entire revised EEO-1 for establishments located in Hawaii, which, as noted above, includes for the first time reporting the race and ethnicity of employees. Because this additional cost is relatively minor, it was not excluded from burden estimates for previous EEO-1 reports. EEO-1 Data on Race and Ethnicity Revised Race and Ethnic Category Definitions Table 1 below compares the current EEO-1 race/ethnic categories in the first column, as they have appeared on the EEO-1 since 1977, with the revised EEO-1 categories in the second column. Definitions of the revised EEO-1 ethnicity and race categories are in accordance with the 1997 revised standards and are as follows: Ethnicity *Hispanic or Latino* —A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Race *White* —A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. *Black or African American* —A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. *Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander* —A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. *Asian* —a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. *American Indian or Alaska Native* —A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment. *Two or More Races* —All persons who identify with more than one of the above five races. Table 1.—Current and Revised Race and Ethnic Categories Current EEO-1—(Answer for both male and female) Revised EEO-1—(Answer for both male and female) Hispanic Hispanic or Latino—(This category includes all employees who answer—YES—to the question—are you Hispanic or Latino? Report in the appropriate categories below all employees who answer—NO—to the question—are you Hispanic or Latino? White—(Not of Hispanic origin) White—(Not Hispanic or Latino). Black—(Not of Hispanic origin) Black or African American—(Not Hispanic or Latino). Asian or Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander—(Not Hispanic or Latino). Asian—(Not Hispanic or Latino). American Indian or Alaskan Native American Indian or Alaska Native—(Not Hispanic or Latino). Two or More Races—(Not Hispanic or Latino). Race and Ethnicity Reporting Instructions on the Revised EEO-1 Race and Ethnic Identification Self-identification is the preferred method of identifying the race and ethnic information necessary for the EEO-1 report. Employers are strongly encouraged to use self-identification to complete the EEO-1 report. If an employee declines to self-identify, employment records or observer identification may be used. As to the method for collecting data, the basic principles for ethnic and racial self-identification for purposes of the EEO-1 report are: 1. Offer employees the opportunity to self-identify; 2. Provide a statement about the voluntary nature of this inquiry for employees. For example, language such as the following may be used (employers may adapt this language): The employer is subject to certain governmental recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the administration of civil rights laws and regulations. In order to comply with these laws, the employer invites employees to voluntarily self-identify their race and ethnicity. Submission of this information is voluntary and refusal to provide it will not subject you to any adverse treatment. The information will be kept confidential and will only be used in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations, including those that require the information to be summarized and reported to the federal government for civil rights enforcement. When reported, data will not identify any specific individual. EEO-1 Job Category Data Table 2 compares the current and the revised EEO-1 job categories: Table 2.—Current and Revised EEO-1 Job Categories Current EEO-1 Revised EEO-1 1. Officials and Managers 1.1 Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers. 1.2 First/Mid Level Officials and Managers. 2. Professionals 2. Professionals. 3. Technicians 3. Technicians. 4. Sales Workers 4. Sales Workers. 5. Office and Clerical 5. Administrative Support Workers. 6. Craft Workers (Skilled) 6. Craft Workers. 7. Operatives (Semi-skilled) 7. Operatives. 8. Laborers (Unskilled) 8. Laborers and Helpers. 9. Service Workers 9. Service Workers. Description of Revised EEO-1 Job Categories The revised EEO-1 job categories are listed below, including a brief description of the skills and training required for occupations in that category and examples of the jobs that fit each category. These job categories are primarily based on average skill levels, knowledge, and responsibility involved in each occupation within the job category. They are not industry based. The examples presented below are illustrative and not intended to be exhaustive of all job titles in a job category. The Officials and Managers category as a whole is to be divided into the following two subcategories: Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers and Fist/Mid Level Officials and Managers. These subcategories are intended to mirror the employer's own well-established hierarchy of management positions. The subcategories will allow assessment of the extent to which minorities and women have access to power and decision making jobs in the employer's workforce. Small employers who may not have two well-defined hierarchical steps of management should report their management employees in the appropriate category. *Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers.* Individuals who plan, direct and formulate policies, set strategy and provide the overall direction of enterprises/organizations for the development and delivery of products and services, within the parameters approved by boards of directors of other governing bodies. Residing in the highest levels of organizations, these executive plan, direct, or coordinate activities with the support of subordinate executives and staff managers. They include, in larger organizations, those individuals within two reporting levels of the CEO, whose responsibilities require frequent interaction with the CEO. Examples of these kinds of managers are: Chief executive officers, chief operating officers, chief financial officers, line of business heads, presidents or executive vice presidents of functional areas or operating groups, chief information officers, chief human resources officers, chief marketing officers, chief legal officers, management directors and managing partners. *First/Mid Level Officials and Managers.* Individuals who serve as managers, other than those who serve as Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers, including those who oversee and direct the delivery of products, services or functions at group, regional or divisional levels of organizations. These managers receive directions from Executive/Senior Level management and typically lead major business units. They implement policies, programs and directives of Executive/Senior Level management through subordinate managers and within the parameters set by Executives/Senior Level management. Examples of these kinds of managers are: Vice presidents and directors; group, regional or divisional controllers; treasurers; and human resources, information systems, marketing, and operations managers. The First/Mid Level Officials and Managers subcategory also includes those who report directly to middle managers. These individuals serve at functional, line of business segment or branch levels and are responsible for directing and executing the day-to-day operational objectives of enterprises/organizations, conveying the directions of higher level officials and managers to subordinate personnel and, in some instances, directly supervising the activities of exempt and non-exempt personnel. Examples of these kinds of managers are: First-line managers; team managers; unit managers; operations and production managers; branch managers; administrative services managers; purchasing and transportation managers; storage and distribution managers; call center or customer service managers; technical support managers; and brand or product managers. *Professionals.* Most jobs in this category require bachelor and graduate degrees, and/or professional certification. In some instances, comparable experience may establish a person's qualifications. Examples of these kinds of positions include: Accountants and auditors; airplane pilots and flight engineers; architects; artists; chemists; computer programmers; designers; dieticians; editors; engineers; lawyers; librarians; mathematical scientists; natural scientists; registered nurses; physical scientists; physicians and surgeons; social scientists; teachers; and surveyors. *Technicians.* Jobs in this category include activities that require applied scientific skills, usually obtained by post-secondary education of varying lengths, depending on the particular occupation, recognizing that in some instances additional training, certification, or comparable experience is required. Examples of these types of positions include: Drafters; emergency medical technicians; chemical technicians; and broadcast and sound engineering technicians. *Sales Workers.* These jobs include non-managerial activities that wholly and primarily involve direct sales. Examples of these types of positions include: Advertising sales agents; insurance sales agents; real estate brokers and sales agents; wholesale sales representatives; securities, commodities, and financial services sales agents; telemarketers; demonstrators; retail salespersons; counter and rental clerks; and cashiers. *Administrative Support Workers* (formerly Office and Clerical). These jobs involve non-managerial tasks providing administrative and support assistance, primarily in office settings. Examples of these types of positions include: Office and administrative support workers; bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks; cargo and freight agents; dispatchers; couriers; data entry keyers; computer operators; shipping, receiving and traffic clerks; word processors and typists; proofreaders; desktop publishers; and general office clerks. *Craft Workers* (formerly Craft Workers (Skilled)). Most lobes in this category include higher skilled occupations in construction (building trades craft workers and their formal apprentices) and natural resource extraction workers. Examples of these types of positions include: Boilermakers; brick and stone masons; carpenters; electricians; painters (both construction and maintenance); glaziers; pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters; plasterers; roofers; elevator installers; earth drillers; derrick operations; oil and gas rotary drill operators; and blasters and explosive workers. This category includes occupations related to the installation, maintenance and part replacement of equipment, machines and tools, such as: Automotive mechanics; aircraft mechanics; and electric and electronic equipment repairers. This category also includes some production occupations that are distinguished by the high degree of skill and precision required to perform them, based on clearly defined task specifications, such as: millwrights; etchers and engravers; tool and die makers; and pattern makers. *Operatives* (formerly Operatives (Semi-skilled)). Most jobs in this category include intermediate skilled occupations and include workers who operate machines or factor-related processing equipment. Most of these occupations do not usually require more than several months of training. Examples include: Textile machine operators; laundry and dry cleaning workers; photographic process workers; weaving machine operators; electrical and electronic equipment assemblers; semiconductor processors; testers, graders and sorters; bakers; and butchers and other meat, poultry and fish processing workers. This category also includes occupations of generally intermediate skill levels that are concerned with operating and controlling equipment to facilitate the movement of people or materials, such as: Bridge and lock tenders; truck, bus or taxi drivers; industrial truck and tractor (forklift) operators; parking lot attendants; sailors; conveyor operations; and hand packers and packagers. *Laborers and Helpers* (formerly Laborers (Unskilled)). Jobs in this category include workers with more limited skills who require only brief training to perform tasks that require little or no independent judgment. Examples include: Production and construction worker helpers; vehicle and equipment cleaners; laborers; freight, stock and material movers; service station attendants; construction laborers; refuse and recyclable materials collectors; septic tank servicers; and sewer pipe cleaners. *Service Workers.* Jobs in this category include food service, cleaning service, personal service, and protective service activities. Skill may be acquired through formal training, job-related training or direct experience. Examples of food service positions include: Cooks; bartenders; and other food service workers. Examples of personal service positions include: Medical assistants and other healthcare support occupations; hairdressers; ushers; and transportation attendants. Examples of cleaning service positions include: cleaners; janitors; and porters. Examples of protective service positions include: Transit and railroad police and fire fighters; guards; private detectives and investigators. As employers begin the process of assigning their employees to the revised ten category system, the EEOC will remain available to provide guidance concerning questions that arise. For the Commission. Cari M. Dominguez, Chair. [FR Doc. 05-23359 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45am]

Connectionstraces to 13

Traces to 13 documents

U.S. Code