Notices. Notice

75,234 words·~342 min read·/register/2007/07/02/07-3215

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

BILLING CODE 4810-35-C 72 126 Monday, July 2, 2007 Notices Part IV Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2008; Notice DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 030602141-7123-50; I.D.051906D] RIN 0648-ZB55 Availability of Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2008 AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publishes this notice to provide the general public with a consolidated source of program and application information related to its competitive grant and cooperative agreement

(CA)award offerings for fiscal year

(FY)2008. This Omnibus notice is designed to replace the multiple **Federal Register** notices that traditionally advertised the availability of NOAA's discretionary funds for its various programs. It should be noted that additional program initiatives unanticipated at the time of the publication of this notice may be announced through subsequent **Federal Register** notices. All announcements will also be available through the Grants.gov Web site. DATES: Proposals must be received by the date and time indicated under each program listing in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. ADDRESSES: Proposals must be submitted to the addresses listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice for each program. The **Federal Register** and Full Funding Opportunity

(FFO)notices may be found on the Grants.gov Web site. The URL for Grants.gov is *http://www.grants.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact the person listed within this notice as the information contact under each program. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Applicants must comply with all requirements contained in the FFO announcements for each of the programs listed in this omnibus notice. These FFOs are available at *http://www.grants.gov.* The list of entries below describe the basic information and requirements for competitive grant/cooperative agreement programs offered by NOAA. These programs are open to any applicant who meets the eligibility criteria provided in each entry. To be considered for an award in a competitive grant/cooperative agreement program, an eligible applicant must submit a complete and responsive application to the appropriate program office. An award is made upon conclusion of the evaluation and selection process for the respective program. NOAA Project Competitions This omnibus notice describes funding opportunities for the following NOAA discretionary grant programs: National Marine Fisheries Service 1. Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Partnership Grant. 2. Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN). 3. Protected Species Cooperative Conservation. 4. Cooperative Research Program. 5. General Coral Reef Conservation. 6. FY2008 Community-based Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Project Grants. 7. Projects to Improve or Amend Coral Reef Fishery Management Plans. 8. FY2008 Community-based Habitat Restoration Project Grants. 9. FY2008 Open Rivers Initiative. 10. Bay Watershed Education & Training Program. 11. 2008 Monkfish Research Set-Aside Program. 12. 2008/2009 Atlantic Herring Research Set-Aside

(RSA)Program. 13. John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. 14. Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program. National Ocean Service 1. CRCP-State and Territory Coral Reef Management Grants. 2. National Estuarine Research Reserve Land Acquisition and Construction Program FY08. 3. 2008 CRCP Coral Reef Ecosystem Monitoring. 4. National Estuarine Research Reserve Graduate Research Fellowship Program FY08. 5. FY08 California Bay Watershed Education and Training Program. 6. Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program, Hawaii. 7. CSCOR FY08 Regional Ecosystem Prediction Program. 8. Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program. 9. FY 2008 Implementation of Regional Integrated Ocean Observing Systems. 10. FY 2008 Integrated Ocean Observing System Regional Association Support. 11. FY 2008 Oceans and Human Health Initiative, External Grants Program. 12. International Coral. National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service 1. Research in Primary Vicarious Calibration of Ocean Color Satellite Sensors. 2. Research in Satellite Data Assimilation for Numerical Weather, Climate, and Environmental Forecast Systems. National Weather Service 1. Collaborative Science, Technology, and Applied Research (CSTAR) Program. Oceans and Atmospheric Research 1. Climate Program Office for FY 2008. Office of the Under Secretary

(USEC)1. Environmental Literacy Grants for Spherical Display Systems for Earth System Science-Installations and Content Development. NOAA Mission Goals The mission of the agency is to understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. Below is a listing of the program solicitations that generally fall under one or more areas of NOAA's strategic plan, i.e., mission goals. It is imperative that potential applicants tie their proposals to one of the mission goals. Program solicitations are provided from each of the five operating units within NOAA. NOAA Project Competitions Listed by NOAA Mission Goals I. Protect, Restore and Manage the Use of Coastal and Ocean Resources Through Ecosystem-Based Management *Summary Description:* Coastal areas are among the most developed in the Nation. More than half the population lives on less than one-fifth of the land in the contiguous United States. Furthermore, employment in near shore areas is growing three times faster than population. Coastal and marine waters support over 28 million jobs and provide a tourism destination for nearly 90 million Americans a year. The value of the ocean economy to the United States is over $115 billion. The value added annually to the national economy by the commercial and recreational fishing industry alone is over $48 billion. U.S. aquaculture sales total almost $1 billion annually. With its Exclusive Economic Zone of 3.4 million square miles, the United States manages the largest marine territory of any nation in the world. *Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:* A. Healthy and productive coastal and marine ecosystems that benefit society; and B. A well-informed public that acts as a steward of coastal and marine ecosystems *Program Names:* 1. Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Partnership Grant. 2. Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN). 3. Protected Species Cooperative Conservation. 4. Cooperative Research Program. 5. General Coral Reef Conservation. 6. FY2008 Community-based Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Project Grants. 7. Projects to Improve or Amend Coral Reef Fishery Management Plans. 8. FY2008 Community-based Habitat Restoration Project Grants. 9. FY2008 Open Rivers Initiative. 10. Bay Watershed Education & Training Program. 11. CRCP-State and Territory Coral Reef Management Grants. 12. National Estuarine Research Reserve Land Acquisition and Construction Program FY08. 13. 2008 CRCP Coral Reef Ecosystem Monitoring. 14. National Estuarine Research Reserve Graduate Research Fellowship Program FY08. 15. FY08 California Bay Watershed Education and Training Program. 16. 2008 Monkfish Research Set-Aside Program. 17. 2008/2009 Atlantic Herring Research Set-Aside

(RSA)Program. 18. Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program, Hawaii. 19. CSCOR FY08 Regional Ecosystem Prediction Program. 20. Research in Primary Vicarious Calibration of Ocean Color Satellite Sensors. 21. Research in Satellite Data Assimilation for Numerical Weather, Climate, and Environmental Forecast Systems. 22. Collaborative Science, Technology, and Applied Research (CSTAR) Program. 23. FY 2008 Oceans and Human Health Initiative, External Grants Program. 24. International Coral. 25. John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program. 26. Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program. II. Understand Climate Variability and Change To Enhance Society's Ability To Plan and Respond *Summary Description:* Climate shapes the environment, natural resources, economies, and social systems that people depend upon worldwide. While humanity has learned to contend with some aspects of climate's natural variability, major climatic events, combined with the stresses of population growth, economic growth, public health concerns, and land-use practices, can impose serious consequences on society. The 1997-98 El Nino, for example, had a $25 billion impact on the U.S. economy—property losses were $2.6 billion and crop losses approached $2 billion. Long-term drought leads to increased and competing demands for fresh water with related effects on terrestrial and marine ecosystems, agricultural productivity, and even the spread of infectious diseases. Decisions about mitigating climate change also can alter economic and social structures on a global scale. We can deliver reliable climate information in useful ways to help minimize risks and maximize opportunities for decisions in agriculture, public policy, natural resources, water and energy use, and public health. We continue to move toward developing a seamless suite of weather and climate products. The Climate Goal addresses predictions on time scales of up to decades or longer. *Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:* A. A predictive understanding of the global climate system on time scales of weeks to decades with quantified uncertainties sufficient for making informed and reasoned decisions; and B. Climate-sensitive sectors and the climate-literate public effectively incorporating NOAA's climate products into their plans and decisions. *Program Names:* 1. Climate Program Office for FY 2008. III. Serve Society's Needs for Weather and Water Information *Summary Description:* Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, wildfires, and other severe weather events cause $11 billion in damages each year in the United States. Weather is directly linked to public health and safety, and nearly one-third of the U.S. economy (about $3 trillion) is sensitive to weather and climate. With so much at stake, NOAA's role in understanding, observing, forecasting, and warning of environmental events is expanding. With our partners, we seek to provide decision makers with key observations, analyses, predictions, and warnings for a range of weather and water conditions, including those related to water supply, air quality, space weather, and wildfires. Businesses, governments, and non-governmental organizations are getting more sophisticated about how to use this weather and water information to improve operational efficiencies, to manage environmental resources, and to create a better quality of life. On average, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other severe weather events cause $11 billion in damages per year. Weather, including space weather, is directly linked to public safety and about one-third of the U.S. economy (about $3 trillion) is weather sensitive. With so much at stake, NOAA's role in observing, forecasting, and warning of environmental events is expanding, while economic sectors and its public are becoming increasingly sophisticated at using NOAA's weather, air quality, and water information to improve their operational efficiencies and their management of environmental resources, and quality of life. *Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:* A. Reduced loss of life, injury, and damage to the economy; B. Better, quicker, and more valuable weather and water information to support improved decisions; and C. Increased customer satisfaction with weather and water information and services. *Program Names:* 1. Collaborative Science, Technology, and Applied Research (CSTAR) Program 2. FY 2008 Implementation of Regional Integrated Ocean Observing Systems 3. FY 2008 Integrated Ocean Observing System Regional Association Support IV. Support the Nation's Commerce With Information for Safe, Efficient, and Environmentally Sound Transportation *Summary Description:* Safe and efficient transportation systems are crucial to the U.S. economy. The U.S. marine transportation system ships over 95 percent of the tonnage and more than 20 percent by value of foreign trade through U.S. ports, including 48 percent of the oil needed to meet America's energy demands. At least $4 billion is lost annually due to economic inefficiencies resulting from weather-related air-traffic delays. Improved surface weather forecasts and specific user warnings would reduce the 7,000 weather related fatalities and 800,000 injuries that occur annually from crashes on roads and highways. The injuries, loss of life, and property damage from weather-related crashes cost an average of $42 billion annually. We provide information, services, and products for transportation safety and for increased commerce on roads, rails, and waterways. We will improve the accuracy of our information for marine, aviation, and surface weather forecasts, the availability of accurate and advanced electronic navigational charts, and the delivery of real-time oceanographic information. We seek to provide consistent, accurate, and timely positioning information that is critical for air, sea, and surface transportation. We will respond to hazardous material spills and provide search and rescue routinely to save lives and money and to protect the coastal environment. We will work with port and coastal communities and with Federal and state partners to ensure that port operations and development proceed efficiently and in an environmentally sound manner. We will work with the Federal Aviation Administration and the private sector to reduce the negative impacts of weather on aviation without compromising safety. Because of increased interest by the public and private sectors, we also will expand weather information for marine and surface transportation to enhance safety and efficiency. *Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:* A. Safe, secure, efficient, and seamless movement of goods and people in the U.S. transportation system; and B. Environmentally sound development and use of the U.S. transportation system. *Program Names:* None. V. Provide Critical Support for NOAA's Mission *Summary Description:* Strong, effective, and efficient support activities are necessary for us to achieve our Mission Goals. Our facilities, ships, aircraft, environmental satellites, data-processing systems, computing and communication systems, and our approach to management provide the foundation of support for all of our programs. This critical foundation must adapt to evolving mission needs and, therefore, is an integral part of our strategic planning. It also must support U.S. homeland security by maintaining continuity of operations and by providing NOAA services, such as civil alert relays through NOAA Weather Radio and air dispersion forecasts, in response to national emergencies. NOAA ships, aircraft, and environmental satellites are the backbone of the global Earth observing system and provide many critical mission support services. To keep this capability strong and current with our Mission Goals, we will ensure that NOAA has adequate access to safe and efficient ships and aircraft through the use of both NOAA platforms and those of other agency, academic, and commercial partners. We will work with academia and partners in the public and private sectors to ensure that future satellite systems are designed, developed, and operated with the latest technology. Leadership development and program support are essential for achieving our Mission Goals. We must also commit to organizational excellence through management and leadership across a “corporate” NOAA. We must continue our commitment to valuing NOAA's diverse workforce, including effective workforce planning strategies designed to attract, retain and develop competencies at all levels of our workforce. Through the use of business process re-engineering, we will strive for state-of-the-art, value-added financial and administrative processes. NOAA will ensure state-of-the-art and secure information technology and systems. By developing long-range, comprehensive facility planning processes, NOAA will be able to ensure right-sized, cost-effective, and safe facilities. *Funded proposals should help achieve the following outcomes:* A. A dynamic workforce with competencies that support NOAA's mission today and in the future. *Program Names:* 1. Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program. 2. Environmental Literacy Grants for Spherical Display Systems for Earth System Science—Installations and Content Development. I. Electronic Access The full funding announcement for each program is available via the Grants.gov Web site: *http://www.grants.gov.* These announcements will also be available by contacting the program official identified below. You will be able to access, download and submit electronic grant applications for NOAA Programs in this announcement at *http://www.grants.gov.* The closing dates will be the same as for the paper submissions noted in this announcement. NOAA strongly recommends that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov. Getting started with Grants.gov is easy! Go to *http://www.grants.gov.* There are two key features on the site: Find Grant Opportunities and Apply for Grants. Everything else on the site is designed to support these two features and your use of them. While you can begin searching for grant opportunities for which you would like to apply immediately, it is recommended that you complete the remaining Get Started steps sooner rather than later, so that when you find an opportunity for which you would like to apply, you are ready to go. Get Started Step 1 Find Grant Opportunity for Which You Would Like To Apply Start your search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities and register to receive automatic e-mail notifications of new grant opportunities or any modifications to grant opportunities as they are posted to the site by clicking the Find Grant Opportunities tab at the top of the page. Get Started Step 2 Register With Central Contractor Registry

(CCR)Your organization will also need to be registered with Central Contractor Registry. You can register with them online. This will take about 30 minutes. You should receive your CCR registration within 3 business days. Important: You must have a DUNS number from Dun & Bradstreet before you register with CCR. Many organizations already have a DUNS number. To determine if your organization already has a DUNS number or to obtain a DUNS number, contact Dun & Bradstreet at 1-866-705-5711. This will take about 10 minutes and is free of charge. Be sure to complete the Marketing Partner ID

(MPIN)and Electronic Business Primary Point of Contact fields during the CCR registration process. These are mandatory fields that are required when submitting grant applications through Grants.gov. Get Started Step 3 Register With the Credential Provider You must register with a Credential Provider to receive a username and password. This will be required to securely submit your grant application. Get Started Step 4 Register With Grants.gov The final step in the Get Started process is to register with Grants.gov. This will be required to submit grant applications on behalf of your organization. After you have completed the registration process, you will receive *e-mail* notification confirming that you are able to submit applications through Grants.gov. Get Started Step 5 Log on to Grants.gov After you have registered with Grants.gov, you can log on to Grants.gov to verify if you have registered successfully, to check application status, and to update information in your applicant profile, such as your name, telephone number, *e-mail* address, and title. In the future, you will have the ability to determine if you are authorized to submit applications through Grants.gov on behalf of your organization. Electronic Application File Format and Naming Conventions After the initial grant application package has been submitted to NOAA (e.g., via Grants.gov), requests for additional or modified forms may be requested by NOAA. Applicants should resubmit forms in Portable Document File Format

(PDF)and follow the following file naming convention to name resubmitted forms. For example: 98042_SF-424_mmddyy_v2.pdf.

(1)98042 = Proposal # (provided to applicant by Grants.gov & NOAA).

(2)SF-424 = Form Number.

(3)mmddyy = Date.

(4)v2 = Version Number. To learn how to convert documents to PDF go to: *http://www.grants.gov/assets/PDFConversion.pdf.* II. Evaluation Criteria and Selection Procedures NOAA standardized the evaluation and selection process for its competitive assistance programs. All proposals submitted in response to this notice shall be evaluated and selected in accordance with the following procedures. There are two sets of evaluation criteria and selection procedures, one for project proposals, and the other for fellowship, scholarship, and internship programs. These evaluation criteria and selection procedures apply to all of the programs included below. Proposal Review and Selection Process for Projects Some programs may include a pre-application process which provides an initial review and feedback to the applicants that have responded to a call for letters of intent or pre-proposals; however, not all programs will include such a process. If a pre-application process is used by a program, it shall be described in the Summary Description and the deadline shall be provided in the Application Deadline section. Upon receipt of a full application by NOAA, an initial administrative review is conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of the application. A merit review is conducted to individually evaluate, score, and rank applications using the evaluation criteria. A second merit review may be conducted on the applicants that meet the program's threshold (based on scores from the first merit review) to make selections using the selection factors provided below. Merit review is conducted by mail reviewers and/or peer panel reviewers. Each reviewer will individually evaluate and rank proposals using the evaluation criteria provided below. A minimum of three merit reviewers per proposal is required. No consensus advice will be given. The merit reviewer's ratings are used to produce a rank order of the proposals. The NOAA Program Officer may review the ranking of the proposals and make recommendations to the Selecting Official based on the mail and/or panel review(s) and selection factors listed below. The Selecting Official selects proposals after considering the mail and/or peer panel review(s) and recommendations of the Program Officer. In making the final selections, the Selecting Official will award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the selection factors below. The Program Officer and/or Selecting Official may negotiate the funding level of the proposal. The Selecting Official makes final recommendations for award to the Grants Officer who is authorized to obligate the funds. Evaluation Criteria for Projects 1. Importance and/or relevance and applicability of proposed project to the program goals: This ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, federal, regional, state, or local activities. 2. Technical/scientific merit: This assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives. 3. Overall qualifications of applicants: This ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project. 4. Project costs: The Budget is evaluated to determine if it is realistic and commensurate with the project needs and time-frame. 5. Outreach and education: NOAA assesses whether this project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural resources. Selection Factors for Projects The merit review ratings shall provide a rank order to the Selecting Official for final funding recommendations. A program officer may first make recommendations to the Selecting Official applying the selection factors below. The Selecting Official shall award in the rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the following factors: 1. Availability of funding. 2. Balance/distribution of funds: a. Geographically. b. By type of institutions. c. By type of partners. d. By research areas. e. By project types. 3. Whether this project duplicates other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA or other federal agencies. 4. Program priorities and policy factors. 5. Applicant's prior award performance. 6. Partnerships and/or Participation of targeted groups. 7. Adequacy of information necessary for NOAA staff to make a NEPA determination and draft necessary documentation before recommendations for funding are made to the Grants Officer. Proposal Review and Selection Process for NOAA Fellowship. Scholarship and Internship Programs Some programs may include a pre-application process which provides an initial review and feedback to the applicants that have responded to a call for letters of intent or pre-proposals; however, not all programs will include such a process. If a pre-application process is used by a program, it shall be described in the Summary Description and the deadline shall be provided in the Application Deadline section. An initial administrative review of full applications is conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of applications. A merit review is conducted to individually evaluate, score, and rank applications using the evaluation criteria. A second merit review may be conducted on the applicants that meet the program's threshold (based on scores from the first merit review) to make selections using the selection factors provided below. No consensus advice will be given. The Program Officer may conduct a review of the rank order and make recommendations to the Selecting Official based on the panel ratings and the selection factors listed below. The Selecting Official considers merit reviews and recommendations. The Selecting Official will award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one or more of the selection factors below. The Selecting Official makes final recommendations for award to the Grants Officer who is authorized to obligate the funds. Evaluation Criteria for Fellowship/Scholarships/Internships 1. Academic record and statement of career goals and objectives of student. 2. Quality of project and applicability to program priorities. 3. Recommendations and/or endorsements of student. 4. Additional relevant experience related to diversity of education; extra-curricular activities; honors and awards; interpersonal, written, and oral communications skills. 5. Financial need of student. Selection Factors for Fellowship/Scholarships/Internships 1. Balance/Distribution of funds: a. Across academic disciplines. b. By types of institutions. c. Geographically. 2. Availability of funds. 3. Program-specific objectives. 4. Degree in scientific area and type of degree sought. III. NOAA Project Competitions National Marine Fisheries Service

(1)Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Partnership Grant *Summary Description:* The NOAA Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program invites applications requesting funding to establish one or more regional habitat restoration partnership(s) for 1 to 3 years. The partnership(s) is expected to catalyze the implementation of habitat restoration projects that will benefit coastal resources through improved Great Lakes habitat quality. The centerpiece of the program will be one or more restoration projects in an Area of Concern that: are based on strong science and data availability; are ecosystem focused; and, involve significant problems and lake-wide improvements. Project areas should include locations where:

(1)Maximum use can be made of on-going restoration efforts and partnerships,

(2)availability of matching funds are met,

(3)the problem is significant to the Great Lakes region, NOAA's mission and established priorities, and,

(4)there is a scientific merit in restoration. NOAA envisions working jointly on such a partnership(s) through its Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program (GLHRP) to fund and administer projects that support community-identified priorities such as:

(1)Restoring and enhancing critical, nearshore areas, tributaries and connecting channels;

(2)remediating basin-wide sources of stress;

(3)protecting healthy functioning areas; and,

(4)monitoring ecosystem health. This document describes the types of partnership(s) that NOAA envisions establishing, portrays the qualities that NOAA has found to be ideal in a partnership, and describes criteria under which applications will be evaluated for funding consideration. The partnership application(s) selected through this announcement must be in support of ongoing efforts in an Area of Concern

(AOC)and will be implemented through a cooperative agreement. The selection process is anticipated to be highly competitive. Funding of up to $1 million may be available to establish one or more habitat restoration partnership(s) in 2008, and annual funding is anticipated to maintain them for 1 to 3 years duration. Definitions of Terms:

(1)The Great Lakes region will be defined by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: Article 1.(h) “Great Lakes System: means all of the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water that are within the drainage basin on the St. Lawrence River at or upstream from the point at which this river becomes the international boundary between Canada and the United States.”

(2)Areas of Concern are severely degraded geographic areas within the Great Lakes Basin. They are defined by the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Annex 2 of the 1987 Protocol) as “geographic areas that fail to meet the general specific objectives of the agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use of the area's ability to support aquatic life.” *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that funding of up to $1 million is expected to be available for establishing a habitat restoration partnership(s) with the NOAA Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program in FY 2008. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. Funding for subsequent years will depend on the ability of partners to successfully perform partnership activities as stated in their applications. NOAA anticipates that the typical partnership(s) award will range from $250,000 to $1,000,000 for the initial year of a regional habitat restoration partnership(s) established in FY 2008. Applicants can request increases to continue scaling up partnership activities in subsequent budget periods to a limit of $2,000,000 in FY 2009, and to $3,000,000 in FY 2010. As this is the first year of the Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program, no prior award information can be provided for reference purposes. *Statutory Authority:* The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, as amended by the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, to provide grants or cooperative agreements for fisheries habitat restoration. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(301)713-0174 x191 or David Landsman at

(301)713-0174 x 151 or *GLHRP.GLERL@NOAA.gov* . *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, hospitals, other non-profits, commercial (for-profit) organizations, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments whose applications propose to benefit Great Lakes coastal and open-lake habitats. Applications from federal agencies or employees of federal agencies will not be considered. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* The overall initial focus of the GLHRP is to provide seed money to a regional partnership(s) that leverages funds and other contributions from a broad public and private sector to implement locally important habitat restoration projects to benefit Great Lakes coastal and open-lake resources within an Area of Concern (AOC). Additionally, the partnership(s) that propose to provide cash match toward project implementation funds at the local level (before local, project-specific contributions are included) will be likely to score higher in the evaluation of project costs. While this is not a requirement, the GLHRP strongly advises applicants to leverage as much investment as possible. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program from state and local governments are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

(2)Marine Fisheries Initiative (MARFIN) *Summary Description:* The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southeast Region, is seeking proposals under the Marine Fisheries Initiative Program (MARFIN), for research and development projects that optimize the use of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and off the South Atlantic states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida involving the U.S. fishing industry (recreational and commercial), including fishery biology, resource assessment, socioeconomic assessment, management and conservation, selected harvesting methods, and fish handling and processing. *Funding Availability:* Approximately $2.0 million may be available in fiscal year

(FY)2008 for projects. This amount includes possible in-house projects. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. The NMFS Southeast Regional Office anticipates awarding projects that will range from $25,000 to $300,000. The average award is $150,000. *Statutory Authority:* 15 U.S.C. 713c-3(d). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.433, Marine Fisheries Initiative. *Application Deadline:* Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m., eastern time on August 1, 2007. For applications submitted through Grants.gov, a date and time receipt indication is included and will be the basis of determining timeliness. Hard copy applications will be date and time stamped when they are received. Facsimile transmission and electronic mail submission of applications will not be accepted. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications should be submitted electronically through *www.grants.gov.* Only if an applicant does not have Internet access, hard copies may be sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service, State/Federal Liaison Branch, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. *Information Contacts:* Ellie F. Roche, Chief, State/Federal Liaison Branch at

(727)824-5324. *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants include Institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible. Foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, and international organizations are excluded for purposes of this solicitation since the objective of the MARFIN program is to optimize research and development benefits from U.S. marine fishery resources. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* Cost sharing is not required. Intergovernmental Review: Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

(3)Protected Species Cooperative Conservation *Summary Description:* The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)is soliciting applications to support the conservation of threatened and endangered species, recently de-listed species, and candidate species under the jurisdiction of the NMFS or under the joint jurisdiction of the NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (e.g. sea turtles). Any state that has entered into an agreement with the NMFS and maintains an adequate and active program for the conservation of endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 6(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

(ESA)is eligible to apply. These financial assistance awards can be used to support management, monitoring, research, and outreach activities that provide direct conservation benefits to listed species, recently de-listed species, or candidate species that reside within that state. Projects involving North Atlantic right whales will not be considered for funding under this grant program; such projects may be submitted under the North Atlantic Right Whale Research Program of the NMFS Northeast Regional Office. Projects focusing on listed Pacific salmon will also not be considered under this grant program; State conservation efforts for these species are funded through the Pacific Salmon Coastal Recovery Fund. The program priorities for this opportunity support NOAA's mission support goal of “Ecosystems”. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that a minimum of $250K and a maximum of $800K may be available for distribution under the FY 2008 PSCC program, in award amounts to be determined by the proposals and available funds. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. Funds have not yet been appropriated for this program, and there is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific grant proposal or to obligate any available funds. Award periods may extend up to 3 years with annual funding contingent on the availability of Federal appropriations and satisfactory performance by the grant recipient. There are no restrictions on maximum or minimum award amounts within the available funding. *Statutory Authority:* The NMFS is authorized to provide Federal assistance to eligible states for the purpose of assisting the states in the development of programs for the conservation of listed, recently de-listed, and candidate species that reside within that state (16 U.S.C. 661; 1535). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.472, Unallied Science Program. *Application Deadline:* Proposals submitted through Grants.gov must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 15, 2007; proposals submitted by mail must be postmarked by September 15, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications should be submitted electronically through the Grants.gov Web site at *http://www.grants.gov.* If online submission is not possible, hard copy applications may be submitted (by postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) to NOAA/NMFS/Office of Protected Resources, Attn: Lisa Manning, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910. *Information Contacts:* Lisa Manning at the NOAA/NMFS/Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, by phone at 301-713-1401, or by e-mail at *Lisa.Manning@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are states that, through their respective state agencies, have entered into an agreement with the NMFS pursuant to section 6(c) of the ESA. The terms ‘state’ and ‘state agency’ are used as defined in section 3 of the ESA. Currently eligible state agencies are from the following states: Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Any state agency that enters into a section 6(c) agreement with the NMFS prior to the application deadline (September 15, 2007) is also eligible to apply. Proposals may address federally listed species that are included in the state's ESA section 6 agreement or any species that has become a “candidate” species by the grant application deadline. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* In accordance with section 6(d) of the ESA, all proposals submitted must include a minimum non-Federal cost share of 25 percent of the total budget if the proposal involves a single state. If a proposal involves collaboration of two or more states, the minimum non-Federal cost share decreases to 10 percent of the total project costs. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

(4)Cooperative Research Program *Summary Description:* The CRP program provides financial assistance for projects that seek to increase and improve the working relationship between researchers from the NMFS, state fishery agencies, universities, and fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico and off the South Atlantic states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida involving the U.S. fishing industry (recreational and commercial). The program is a means of involving commercial and recreational fishermen in the collection of fundamental fisheries information. Collection efforts support the development and evaluation of management and regulatory options. *Funding Availability:* Approximately $2.0 million may be available in fiscal year

(FY)2008 for projects. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. The NMFS Southeast Regional Office estimates awarding eight projects that will range from $25,000 to $400,000. The average award is $150,000. Publication of this notice does not obligate NMFS to award any specific grant or cooperative agreement or any of the available funds. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for the CRP is provided by the following: 15 U.S.C. 713c-3(d). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.454, Unallied Management Projects. *Application Deadline:* Applications must be received by 5 p.m., eastern time on August 31, 2007. For applications submitted through Grants.gov, a date and time receipt indication is included and will be the basis of determining timeliness. Hard copy applications will be date and time stamped when they are received. Facsimile transmission and electronic mail submission of applications will not be accepted. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications should be submitted through *www.grants.gov.* Only if an applicant does not have internet access, hard copies may be sent to: National Marine Fisheries Service, State/Federal Liaison Branch, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. *Information Contacts:* For questions regarding the application process, you may contact: Robert Sadler, State/Federal Liaison Branch,

(727)824-5324, or *Robert.Sadler@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants may be Institutions of higher education, nonprofits, commercial organizations, individuals, and state, local, and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible. Foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, and international organizations are excluded for purposes of this solicitation since the objective of the CRP is to optimize research and development benefits from U.S. marine fishery resources. Applicants who are not commercial or recreational fishermen must have commercial or recreational fishermen participating in their project. There must be a written agreement with a fisherman describing the involvement in the project activity. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* Cost-sharing is not required for this program. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications submitted by state and local governments are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Any applicant submitting an application for funding is required to complete item 16 on SF-424 regarding clearance by the State Single Point of Contact

(SPOC)established as a result of EO 12372. To find out about and comply with a States process under EO 12372, the names, addresses and phone numbers of participating SPOCs are listed in the Office of Management and Budget's home page at: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.*

(5)General Coral Reef Conservation *Summary Description:* The NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program/General Coral Reef Conservation Grants (GCRCGP) provides funding to institutions of higher education, non-profit organizations, commercial organizations, Freely Associated State government agencies, and local and Indian tribal governments to support coral reef conservation projects in the United States and the Freely Associated States in the Pacific, as authorized under the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. Projects funded through the GCRCGP support on-the-ground efforts that:

(1)Help preserve, sustain and restore the condition of coral reef ecosystems,

(2)promote the wise management and sustainable use of coral reef resources,

(3)increase public knowledge and awareness of coral reef ecosystems and issues regarding their conservation and

(4)develop sound scientific information on the condition of coral reef ecosystems and the threats to such ecosystems. Projects should complement and fill gaps in state, territorial and commonwealth coral reef programs, emphasize community-based conservation, or address local action strategy priorities. Proposals selected for funding through this solicitation require a 1:1 match and will be implemented through a grant. Funding of up to $600,000 is expected to be available for GRCGP in FY 2008. These funds will be divided approximately equally among the U.S. Pacific and Atlantic to maintain geographic balance, as outlined in the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. Awards will range from $15,000-$50,000. *Funding Availability:* NOAA announces the availability of up to $600,000 of Federal assistance may be available in FY 2008 for the GCRCGP to support financial assistance awards for coral conservation activities. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. Proposals can be submitted for a minimum of $15,000 to a maximum of $50,000; NOAA will not accept proposals requesting over $50,000 of Federal funds. There is no limit on the number of applications that can be submitted by the same applicant during the 2008 competitive grant cycle. However, multiple applications submitted by the same applicant must clearly identify different projects and must be successful in the competitive review process. The number of awards made as a result of this solicitation will depend on the number of eligible applications received, the amount of funds requested for each project, the merit and ranking of the proposals, and the amount of funds made available to the Program by Congress. In addition, funding will be divided between the U.S. Pacific and U.S. Atlantic to meet requirements for geographic distribution of funds, as described in the Coral Reef Conservation Act. Attempts will also be made to fund one or more projects in each jurisdiction, provided that the project addresses priorities outlined above, it is identified as having sufficient merit, and it meets all other requirements as stipulated in this solicitation. The funds have not yet been appropriated for this program, and there is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program is provided by Section 6403 (Coral Reef Conservation Program) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6401 *et seq* .). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.463, Habitat Conservation. *Application Deadline:* Applications must be received no later than 11:59 PM EST on November 1, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications should be submitted through *www.grants.gov.* If applicants are unable to submit through *www.grants.gov* , an original paper copy of signed Federal financial assistance forms and the complete project narrative and budget narrative must be submitted by mail to: Andrew Bruckner, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Habitat Conservation (F/HC), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. ATTN: CRCGP Project Applications. Electronic copies of the project narrative and budget narrative are requested when submitting by mail ( *liz.fairey@noaa.gov* ), however e-mail applications submitted without a mailed hard copy with appropriate postal date stamp will not be accepted. *Information Contacts:* Technical point of contact for NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program/General Grants is Andy Bruckner, 301-713-3459, extension 190 or e-mail at *andy.bruckner@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Institutions of higher education, non-profit organizations, commercial organizations, local and Indian tribal governments and Freely Associated State Government Agencies can apply for funding under the GCRCGP. U.S. federal, state, territory, and commonwealth governments and Regional Fishery Management Councils are not eligible under this category. NOAA employees are not allowed to help in the preparation of applications or write letters of support for any application. NOAA staff are available to provide information on programmatic goals and objectives, ongoing coral reef conservation programs, Regional funding priorities, and, along with other Federal Program Officers, can provide information on application procedures and completion of required forms. For activities that involve collaboration with current NOAA programs or staff, NOAA employees must provide a letter verifying that they are collaborating with the project. Federal employee travel and salaries are not allowable costs under this program. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* As per section 6403(b)(1) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, Federal funds for any coral conservation project funded under this Program may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the project. All GCRCGP projects submitted to this program require a 1:1 match obtained from non-Federal sources. Applicants must specify in their proposal the source of the match and provide letters of commitment to confirm stated match contributions. The match can include in-kind contributions and other non-cash support. Applicants are permitted to combine contributions from additional non-Federal partners in order to meet the 1:1 match expected, as long as such contributions are not being used to match any other funds. Federal funds may not be used as matching funds. The nature of the contribution (cash versus in-kind) and the amount of matching funds will be taken into consideration in the review process, with cash being the preferred method of contribution. However, applicants should note that cost sharing is an element considered in Evaluation Criterion d. Project Costs. Applicants may request a waiver from the 1:1 match pursuant to Section 6403(b)(2) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act. As per section 6403(b)(2) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, the NOAA Administrator may waive all or part of the matching requirement if the Administrator determines that the project meets the following two requirements:

(1)No reasonable means are available through which an applicant can meet the matching requirement; and

(2)The probable benefit of such project outweighs the public interest in such matching requirement. In the case of a waiver request, the applicant must provide a detailed justification at the time the proposal is submitted explaining the need for the waiver including attempts to obtain sources of matching funds, how the benefit of the project outweighs the public interest in providing match, and any other extenuating circumstances preventing the availability of match. Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, and in accordance with 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d), the Program shall waive any requirement for local matching funds for any project under $200,000 (including in-kind contribution) to the governments of Insular Areas, defined as the jurisdictions of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Eligible applicants choosing to apply 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d) must include a letter requesting a waiver that demonstrates that their project meets the requirements of 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d). *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this Program are subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Any applicant submitting an application for funding is required to complete item 16 on SF-424 regarding clearance by the State Single Point of Contact

(SPOC)established as a result of EO 12372. *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html*

(6)FY2008 Community-based Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Project Grants *Summary Description:* The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP), authorized in the Marine Debris Reduction, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 *et seq.* ), provides funding to catalyze the implementation of locally driven, community-based marine debris prevention and removal projects that will benefit coastal habitat, waterways, and NOAA trust resources including diadromous fish. Projects funded through the MDP have strong on-the-ground habitat components involving the removal of marine debris and derelict gear that will provide educational and social benefits for people and their communities in addition to long-term ecological habitat improvements for NOAA trust resources. Through this solicitiation the MDP identifies potential marine debris prevention and removal projects, strengthens the development and implementation of habitat restoration through the removal of marine debris within communities, and fosters awareness of the effects of marine debris through the funding of outreach and education proposals to further the conservation of living marine resource habitats across a wide geographic area. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that funding of up to $2,000,000 is expected to be available for Community-based Marine Prevention and Removal Project Grants in FY 2008. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. The NOAA Restoration Center anticipates that typical project awards will range from $15,000 to $150,000; NOAA will not accept proposals for under $15,000 or proposals for over $250,000 under this solicitation. *Statutory Authority:* The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is authorized under the Marine Debris Reduction, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 *et seq.* ) to provide grants or cooperative agreements to identify, determine sources of, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its adverse impacts on the marine environment and navigation safety. The Secretary of Commerce is also authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, as amended by the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, to provide grants or cooperative agreements for fisheries habitat restoration. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.463, Habitat Conservation. *Application Deadline:* Applications should be submitted via *www.grants.gov* , and must be received by grants.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 31, 2007. No facsimile or electronic mail applications will be accepted. Applications postmarked or provided to a delivery service after that time will not be considered for funding. Applications submitted via the U.S. Postal Service must have an official postmark; private metered postmarks are not acceptable. In any event, applications received later than 15 business days following the postmark closing date will not be accepted. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications should be submitted through Grants.gov. If grants.gov cannot reasonably be used, a hard copy application with the SF424 signed in blue ink must be postmarked, or provided to a delivery service and documented with a receipt, by October 31, 2007, and sent to: NOAA Restoration Center (F/HC3), Community-based Restoration Program, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East West Highway, Rm. 14727, Silver Spring, MD 20910. ATTN: MDP Project Applications. *Information Contacts:* For further information contact David Landsman at 301-713-0174 or by e-mail at *David.Landsman@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other non-profits, commercial (for profit) organizations, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, international organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments whose projects have the potential to benefit NOAA trust resources. Applications from federal agencies or employees of Federal agencies will not be considered. Federal agencies are strongly encouraged to work with states, non-governmental organizations, national service clubs or youth corps organizations and others that are eligible to apply. The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that work in under-served areas. The MDP encourages proposals involving any of the above institutions. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* Cost-sharing is not required however it does affect a proposal's score (see criterion 4, Section V.A. of the Federal Funding Opportunity). Federal sources cannot be considered for matching funds, but can be described in the budget narrative to demonstrate additional leverage. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications submitted by state and local governments are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

(7)Projects To Improve or Amend Coral Reef Fishery Management Plans *Summary Description:* The NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program/Projects to Improve or Amend Coral Reef Fishery Management Plans (CRFMPGP) provides funding to the Regional Fishery Management Councils for projects to conserve and manage coral reef fisheries, as authorized under the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. Projects funded through the CRFMPGP are for activities that

(1)provide better scientific information on the status of coral reef fisheries resources, critical habitats of importance to coral reef fishes, and the impacts of fishing on these species and habitats;

(2)identify new management approaches that protect coral reef biodiversity and ecosystem function through regulation of fishing and other extractive uses; and

(3)incorporate conservation and sustainable management measures into existing or new Federal fishery management plans for coral reef species. Proposals selected for funding through this solicitation will be implemented through a Cooperative Agreement. The role of NOAA in the CRFMPGP is to help identify potential projects that reduce impacts of fishing on coral reef ecosystems, strengthen the development and implementation of the projects, and assist in coordination of these efforts with Federal, state, territory or commonwealth management authorities and various coral reef user groups. Funding up to $1,050,000 is expected to be available for CRFMPGP Cooperative Agreements in FY 2008. These funds will be divided equally among the Atlantic and Pacific to maintain the geographic split required by the Act. The NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program anticipates that awards will range from $175,000-$525,000. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that approximately $1,050,000 is expected to be available for cooperative agreements in support coral reef conservation activities for Projects to Improve or Amend Coral Reef Fishery Management Plans (CRFMPGP) in FY 2008. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. The NOAA Coral reef Conservation Program anticipates that typical project awards will range from about $175,000 to $525,000; NOAA will not accept proposals for over $525,000 under this solicitation. Equal funding will be provided to the Atlantic and Pacific, up to a maximum of $525,000 for activities in the Western Pacific, and a maximum of $525,000 for activities in the South Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Activities approved by NOAA will be awarded as new cooperative agreements through the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation (HC). The number of awards made as a result of this solicitation will depend on the number of eligible applications received, the amount of funds requested for each project, the merit and ranking of the proposals, and the amount of funds made available to the Program by Congress. The funds have not yet been appropriated for this program, and there is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program is provided by Section 6403 (Coral Reef Conservation Program) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6401 et seq). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.441, Regional Fishery Management Councils. *Application Deadline:* Applications should be submitted via *www.grants.gov* and must be received by grants.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on November 1, 2007. *Address For Submitting Proposals:* Applications should be submitted through *www.grants.gov.* If applicants are unable to submit through *www.grants.gov,* an original paper copy of signed Federal financial assistance forms and the complete project narrative and budget narrative must be submitted by mail to: Andrew Bruckner, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Habitat Conservation (F/HC), 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. ATTN: CRCGP Project Applications. Electronic copies of the project narrative and budget narrative are requested when submitting by e-mail ( *liz.fairey@noaa.gov* ), however e-mail applications submitted without a mailed hard copy with appropriate postal date stamp will not be accepted. *Information Contacts:* Information on submission requirements and Federal forms can be obtained from Liz Fairey at 301-713-3459 or by e-mail at *liz.fairey@noaa.gov.* Technical point of contact for NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program/Projects to Improve or Amend Coral Reef Fishery Management Plans Grants Program is Andy Bruckner, 301-713-3459, extension 190 or e-mail at *andy.bruckner@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are limited to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* No cost sharing or matching is required under this program. The Administrator has waived the matching requirement for the Fishery Management Councils as discussed in Section VII of the Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program Implementation Guidelines ( **Federal Register** Vol. 67, No. 76, page 19396, Friday, April 19, 2002). This waiver is based on the fact that the Councils are funded solely by awards from the U.S. Federal Government, and therefore, do not have the ability to generate matching funds. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this CRFMPGP are subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Specific information regarding Intergovernmental Review can be found above in Section IV. Application and Submission Information, D. Intergovernmental Review.

(8)FY2008 Community-based Habitat Restoration Project Grants *Summary Description:* The NOAA Community-based Restoration Program

(CRP)provides funding and technical expertise to catalyze the implementation of locally-driven, grass-roots habitat restoration projects that will benefit living marine and coastal resources, including diadromous fish. Projects funded through the CRP have strong on-the-ground habitat restoration components that provide educational and social benefits for people and their communities in addition to long-term ecological habitat improvements for NOAA trust resources. Through this solicitation, the CRP identifies potential restoration projects, strengthens the development and implementation of sound restoration projects and science-based monitoring of such projects within communities, and develops long-term, ongoing national and regional partnerships to support community-based restoration of living marine and coastal resource habitats across a wide geographic area. Proposals selected for funding through this solicitation will be implemented through a cooperative agreement. Funding of up to $3,000,000 is expected to be available for Community-based Habitat Restoration Project Grants in FY 2008. The NOAA Restoration Center

(RC)anticipates that typical awards will range from $50,000 to $200,000. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that funding of up to $3,000,000 is expected to be available for Community-based Habitat Restoration Project Grants in FY 2008. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. The NOAA Restoration Center anticipates that typical project awards will range from $50,000 to $200,000; NOAA will not accept proposals for under $30,000 or proposals for over $250,000 under this solicitation. There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all proposals. The number of awards to be made as a result of this solicitation will depend on the number of eligible applications received, the amount of funds requested for initiating restoration projects by the applicants, the merit and ranking of the proposals, and the amount of funds made available to the CRP by Congress. The CRP anticipates that between 10 and 20 awards will be made as a result of this solicitation. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Publication of this document does not obligate NOAA to award any specific project or obligate all or any parts of any available funds. In FY 2006, 12 applications were recommended for funding ranging from $32,766 to $175,000 for a total of $1,009,466. In FY 2005, 18 applications were recommended for funding ranging from $20,000 to $211,507 for a total of $1.72 million. In FY 2004, 14 applications were recommended for funding ranging from $30,000 to $206,277 for a total of $1.37 million. *Statutory Authority:* The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (H.R. 5946) to provide funding and technical expertise for fisheries and coastal habitat restoration and to promote significant community support and volunteer participation in such activities. The Secretary of Commerce is also authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, as amended by the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, to provide grants or cooperative agreements for fisheries habitat restoration. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.463, Habitat Conservation. *Application Deadline:* Applications must be received by Grants.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 27, 2007. If Grants.gov cannot reasonably be used, a hard copy application must be postmarked, or provided to a delivery service and documented with a receipt, by September 27, 2007. No facsimile or electronic mail applications will be accepted. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applicants are strongly encouraged to apply through *www.grants.gov.* It takes approximately 3 weeks to register with Grants.gov, and registration is required only once. Applicants should consider the time needed to register with Grants.gov, and should begin the registration process well in advance of the application due date if they have never registered with Grants.gov. Applications must be received by Grants.gov no later than 11:59 PM EDT on September 27, 2007 to be considered for funding. Applicants should allow themselves time to submit the proposal to Grants.gov, as the deadline for submission cannot be extended and there is the potential for human or computer error during the Grants.gov submission process. If Grants.gov cannot reasonably be used, a hard copy application with the SF424 signed in ink (blue ink is preferred) must be postmarked, or provided to a delivery service and documented with a receipt, by September 27, 2007, and sent to: NOAA Restoration Center (F/HC3), Community-based Restoration Program, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East West Highway, Rm. 14727, Silver Spring, MD 20910. ATTN: CRP Project Applications. Applications postmarked or provided to a delivery service after that time will not be considered for funding. Applications submitted via the U.S. Postal Service must have an official postmark; private metered postmarks are not acceptable. In any event, applications received later than 15 business days following the postmark closing date will not be accepted. No facsimile or electronic mail applications will be accepted. Applicants desiring acknowledgment of receipt of their applications should include a self-addressed postcard. Paper applications should be printed on one side only, on 8.5″ x 11″ paper, and should not be bound in any manner. Applicants submitting paper applications should also include a full copy of the application on a compact disc (CD). *Information Contacts:* For further information contact Cathy Bozek or Melanie Gange at

(301)713-0174, or by fax at

(301)713-0184, or by e-mail at *Cathy.Bozek@noaa.gov* or *Melanie.Gange@noaa.gov.* Potential applicants are invited to contact CRP staff before submitting an application to discuss the applicability of project ideas to the CRP's goals and objectives. Additional information on the CRP, including examples of community-based habitat restoration projects that have been funded to date, can be found on the World Wide Web at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, hospitals, other non-profits, commercial (for profit) organizations, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, international organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments whose projects have the potential to benefit NOAA trust resources. Applications from federal agencies or employees of Federal agencies will not be considered. Federal agencies are strongly encouraged to work with states, non-governmental organizations, national service clubs or youth corps organizations and others that are eligible to apply. The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that work in under-served areas. The CRP encourages proposals involving any of the above institutions. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* A major goal of the CRP is to provide seed money to projects that leverage funds and other contributions from a broad public and private sector to implement locally important habitat restoration to benefit living marine and coastal resources. Cost-sharing is not required however it does affect a proposal's score (see criterion 4, Section V.A. of the Federal Funding Opportunity). *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications submitted by state and local governments are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Any applicant submitting an application for funding is required to complete item 16 on SF-424 regarding clearance by the State Single Point of Contact

(SPOC)established as a result of EO 12372. To find out about and comply with a State's process under EO 12372, the names, addresses and phone numbers of participating SPOC's are listed in the Office of Management and Budget's home page at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.*

(9)FY2008 Open Rivers Initiative *Summary Description:* The NOAA Open Rivers Initiative

(ORI)provides funding to catalyze the implementation of locally-driven projects to remove dams and other barriers, in order to benefit living marine and coastal resources, particularly diadromous fish. Projects funded through the Open Rivers Initiative have strong on-the-ground habitat restoration components that foster economic, educational, and social benefits for citizens and their communities in addition to long-term ecological habitat improvements for NOAA trust resources. Through the ORI, NOAA provides funding and technical assistance for barrier removal projects. Proposals selected for funding through this solicitation will be implemented through a cooperative agreement. Funding of up to $6,000,000 is expected to be available for ORI Project Grants in FY 2008. The NOAA Restoration Center

(RC)within the Office of Habitat Conservation will administer this grant initiative, and anticipates that typical awards will range from $50,000 to $250,000. Although a select few may fall outside of this range, project proposals requesting less than $30,000 or greater than $1,000,000 will not be accepted or reviewed. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that funding of up to $6,000,000 is expected to be available for Open Rivers Initiative Project Grants in FY 2008. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. NOAA anticipates that typical project awards will range from $50,000 to $250,000; proposals requesting less than $30,000 or more than $1,000,000 will not be accepted under this solicitation. NOAA does not guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all proposals. The number of awards to be made as a result of this solicitation will depend on the number of eligible applications received, the amount of funds requested by the applicants, the merit and ranking of the proposals, and the amount of funds made available to the ORI by Congress. NOAA anticipates that between 20 and 40 awards will be made as a result of this solicitation. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Publication of this document does not obligate NOAA to award any specific project or obligate all or any parts of any available funds. *Statutory Authority:* The Secretary of Commerce is authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661, as amended by the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, to provide grants or cooperative agreements for fisheries habitat restoration. The Secretary of Commerce is also authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (H.R. 5946) to provide funding and technical expertise for fisheries and coastal habitat restoration and to promote significant community support and volunteer participation in such activities. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.463, Habitat Conservation. *Application Deadline:* Applications should be submitted via grants.gov, and must be received by grants.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 31, 2007. If *http://www.grants.gov* cannot reasonably be used, a hard copy application, with the SF-424 Form bearing an original, ink signature must be postmarked, or provided to a delivery service and documented with a receipt, by October 31st, 2007. No facsimile or electronic mail applications will be accepted. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applicants are strongly encouraged to apply through *www.grants.gov* and should note that it takes approximately 3 weeks to register with grants.gov, and registration is required only once. Applicants should consider the time needed to register with grants.gov, and should begin the registration process well in advance of the application due date if they have never registered with grants.gov. If *www.grants.gov* cannot reasonably be used, a hard copy application with the SF-424 bearing an original, ink signature must be postmarked, or provided to a delivery service and documented with a receipt, by October 31st, 2007, and sent to: NOAA Restoration Center (F/HC3), Office of Habitat Conservation, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East West Highway, Rm. 14718, Silver Spring, MD 20910. ATTN: Open Rivers Initiative Project Applications. Applications postmarked or provided to a delivery service after that time will not be considered for funding. Applications submitted via the U.S. Postal Service must have an official postmark; private metered postmarks are not acceptable. In any event, applications received later than 15 business days following the postmark closing date will not be accepted. No facsimile or electronic mail applications will be accepted. Paper applications should be printed on one side only, on 8.5″ x 11″ paper, and should not be bound in any manner. Applicants submitting paper applications should also include a full copy of the application on a compact disc (CD). *Information Contacts:* For further information contact Tisa Shostik ( *Tisa.Shostik@noaa.gov* ) or Melanie Gange ( *Melanie.Gange@noaa.gov* ) at

(301)713-0174. Potential applicants are invited to contact NOAA Restoration Center staff before submitting an application to discuss the applicability of project ideas to the goals and objectives of ORI. Additional information on the ORI can be found on the world wide web at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other non-profits, industry and commercial (for profit) organizations, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, international organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments whose projects have the potential to benefit NOAA trust resources. Applications from federal agencies or employees of federal agencies will not be considered. Federal agencies are strongly encouraged to work with states, non-governmental organizations, national service clubs or youth corps organizations and others that are eligible to apply. The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that work in under-served areas. The ORI encourages proposals from or involving any of the above institutions. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* A major goal of the ORI will be to provide seed money for projects that leverage funds and other contributions from a broad public and private sector to implement locally important barrier removals to benefit living marine and coastal resources. Cost-sharing is not required however it does affect a proposal's score (see criterion 4, Section V.A. of the Federal Funding Opportunity). *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this initiative are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Any applicant submitting an application for funding is required to complete item 16 on SF-424 regarding clearance by the State Single Point of Contact

(10)Bay Watershed Education and Training Program *Summary Description:* B-WET Chesapeake is a competitively based program that supports existing environmental education programs, fosters the growth of new programs, and encourages the development of partnerships among environmental education programs throughout the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed. Funded projects assist in meeting the Stewardship and Community Engagement goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Specifically, projects support organizations that provide meaningful watershed educational experiences for students or related professional development for teachers. NCBO is encouraging applications that include innovative technologies in the delivery of these experiences. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that approximately $3.5M may be available in FY 2008 in award amounts to be determined by the proposals and available funds. Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. Annual funding is anticipated to maintain partnerships for up to 3 years duration, but is dependent on funding made available by Congress. 1. About $2.75M will be for exemplar programs that successfully integrate teacher professional development on the Chesapeake Bay watershed with in-depth classroom study and outdoor experiences for their students. 2. About $500K will be for proposals that provide opportunities either for students (K through 12) to participate in Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences related to Chesapeake Bay or Professional Development in the area of Chesapeake Bay watershed education for teachers. 3. About $250K will be for proposals that incorporate innovative technologies into meaningful watershed educational experiences. The NCBO anticipates that typical awards for B-WET Exemplar Programs that successfully integrate teacher professional development with in-depth classroom student and outdoor experiences for their students will range from $50,000 to $200,000. Projects that represent either meaningful watershed educational experiences for students or teacher professional development in watershed education will range from $10,000 to $75,000. Technology-Based Projects will generally range from $20,000 to $150,000. There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the government. Notwithstanding verbal or written assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation on the part of NOAA to cover pre-award costs unless approved by the Grants Officer as part of the terms when the award is made. *Statutory Authority:* Under 15 U.S.C. 1540, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, is authorized to enter into cooperative agreements and other financial agreements with any nonprofit organization to aid and promote scientific and educational activities to foster public understanding of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or its programs. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.457, Chesapeake Bay Studies. *Application Deadline:* Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. eastern time on Friday, October 19, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit applications electronically through *http://www.grants.gov.* Hard copies may be submitted by postal mail, commercial delivery service, or hand-delivery. Proposals being submitted by hard copy must be received by: NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office; Education Coordinator; 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107A; Annapolis, Maryland 21403. Facsimile transmissions and e-mail submission of proposals will not be accepted. *Information Contacts:* Please visit the B-WET Web site for further information at: *http://noaa.chesapeakebay.net/educationgrants.aspx* or contact Shannon Sprague, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office; 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107A, Annapolis, MD 21403, or by phone at 410-267-5664, or fax to 410-267-5666, or via e-mail at *Shannon.Sprague@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are K-through-12 public and independent schools and school systems, institutions of higher education, community-based and nonprofit organizations, state or local government agencies, interstate agencies, and Indian tribal governments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that work in undeserved areas. The NCBO encourages proposals involving any of the above institutions. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* No cost sharing is required under this program, however, the NCBO strongly encourages applicants include a 25% or higher match. Funds from other Federal awards may not be considered matching funds. The nature of the contribution (cash versus in-kind) and the amount of matching funds will be taken into consideration in the review process. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

(11)2008 Monkfish Research Set-Aside Program *Summary Description:* The National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS)announces that the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) have set aside 500 monkfish days-at-sea

(DAS)to be used for research endeavors under a research set-aside

(RSA)program. NMFS is soliciting proposals to utilize the DAS for research activities concerning the monkfish fishery for fishing year 2008 (May 1, 2008-April 30, 2009). Through the allocation of research DAS, the Monkfish RSA Program provides a mechanism to reduce the cost for vessel owners to participate in cooperative monkfish research. The intent of this RSA program is for fishing vessels to utilize these research DAS to conduct monkfish related research, rather than their allocated monkfish DAS, thereby eliminating any cost to the vessel associated with using a monkfish DAS. *Funding Availability:* No Federal funds are provided for research under this notification. Rather, projects funded under the Monkfish RSA Program would be provided with additional opportunity to harvest monkfish, and the catch sold to generate income to offset research costs. The National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (NMFS), the Federal Government may issue an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP), if needed, to provide special fishing privileges in response to research proposals selected under this program. For example, vessels participating in an approved research project may be authorized by the Northeast Regional Administrator, NMFS, to harvest monkfish in excess of established possession limits. Two awards were issued under the 2006 Monkfish RSA Program, with these projects recently ending in April 2007. Three awards were issued under the 2007 Monkfish RSA Program, and these projects are expected to commence in May 2007. A total of 137.5 RSA DAS were issued to projects during FY 2006, and a total of 367 RSA DAS have been issued to projects for FY 2007. For FY 2008, it is anticipated that 2-5 awards will be made. Funds generated from landings harvested and sold under the Monkfish RSA Program shall be used to cover the cost of research activities, including vessel costs. For example, the funds may be used to pay for gear modifications, monitoring equipment, the salaries of research personnel, or vessel operation costs. The Federal Government shall not be liable for any costs incurred in the conduct of the project. Specifically, the Federal Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the researcher or vessel owner should the sale of catch not fully reimburse the researcher or vessel owner for his/her expenses. *Statutory Authority:* Grants issued through the RSA program are consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(11), 16 U.S.C. 1881a(e), and 16 U.S.C. 1881(c). The ability to set aside monkfish DAS for research purposes was established in the final rule implementing Amendment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (70 FR 21927, April 28, 2005), and codified in the regulations at 50 CFR 648.92(c). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.454, Unallied Management Projects. *Application Deadline:* Applications must be received on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, August 31, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Proposals must be submitted electronically through *http://www.grants.gov* , or as hard copy (by postal mail, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery) to NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543. Delays may be experienced when Registering with Grants On-line near the end of a solicitation period. Therefore, NOAA strongly recommends that applicants do not wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through *http://www.grants.gov* . Electronic or hard copies received after the deadline will not be considered, and hard copy applications will be returned to the sender. *Information Contacts:* Administrative questions: Allison McHale, Fishery Policy Analyst, NMFS, by phone 978-281-9103, fax 978-281-9135, or e-mail at *allison.mchale@noaa.gov* . Technical questions: Kelly Taranto, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543 by phone 508-495-2312, fax 508-495-2004, or e-mail at *kelly.taranto@noaa.gov* . *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, institutions of higher education, hospitals, other non-profits, commercial organizations, individuals, state, local, and Native American tribal governments. Federal agencies and institutions are not eligible to receive Federal assistance under this notice. Additionally, employees of any Federal agency or Regional Fishery Management Council (Council) are ineligible to submit an application under this program. However, Council members who are not Federal employees may submit an application. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* None. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under the program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

(12)2008/2009 Atlantic Herring Research Set-Aside

(RSA)*Program:* NMFS announces that for 2008 and 2009 Atlantic herring (herring) fishing years (January 1-December 31), the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), in consultation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, has set aside 3 percent of the total allowable catch

(TAC)from herring management areas 1A, 1B, 2, and 3, to be used for research endeavors under a research set-aside

(RSA)program. The RSA program provides a mechanism to fund research and compensate vessel owners through the sale of fish harvested under the research quota. Vessels participating in research and/or compensation activities of an approved research project may be authorized by the Northeast Regional Administrator, NMFS, to harvest and land fish from management areas closed due to attainment of a commercial quota. Landings from such trips shall be sold to generate funds that help defray the costs associated with the approved research projects. No Federal funds are provided for research under this notification. Priority shall be given to funding research proposals in the following general subject areas:

(1)Efforts to define localized herring depletion on a spatial and temporal scale,

(2)assessment of bycatch/discards in the directed herring fishery,

(3)commercial herring catch sampling programs and portside bycatch surveys,

(4)herring predator/prey information synthesis and investigations addressing information gaps,

(5)development and testing of herring gear modifications to minimize interactions with non-target species in the herring fishery, and

(6)development of tagging and morphometric studies to explore uncertainties in herring stock structure, stock mixing rates, and the impacts of harvest mortality on different components of the stock. For a detailed description of the research priorities, see 2008/2009 Atlantic Herring RSA Program Research Priorities listed in full text at *http://www.grants.gov* , Federal Funding Opportunity #NMFS-NEFSC-2008-2001107. *Funding Availability:* No Federal funds are provided for research under this notification, but rather the opportunity to fish with the catch sold to generate income to offset research costs. Individual research projects may apply for the use of more than one herring research set-aside allocation from the 2008 and/or 2009 fishing year(s). Multi-year projects can be funded since the herring RSA program is intended to be consistent with the three-year harvest specification process. The research compensation trips must be conducted in the management area from which the set-aside was derived. In addition, an awarded TAC set-aside must be utilized in the same fishing year from which it was distributed. For example, a 2008 TAC RSA from Management Area 2 must be harvested before the end of the 2008 fishing year (December 31, 2008). However, the money generated from the RSA may be rolled over into, or used to fund research in, future years, consistent with the multi-year proposal. No more than 50 percent of an allocated set-aside should be taken before the research begins. Proposals may request that set-aside herring be collected separately from the research trip(s) or as part of the research trip(s). To set a value on the TAC set asides, the value of the herring must be estimated. This Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)uses an estimated price based on the average 2005 price of $202 per metric ton

(mt)established through herring dealer reports. By requiring researchers to use this price in requesting RSA TAC, all proposals will relate herring catch to research costs similarly. The Federal Government may issue a Letter of Authorization

(LOA)or Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP), as applicable, which may provide special fishing privileges in response to research proposals selected under this program. Funds generated from the RSA landings shall be used to cover the cost of the research activities, including vessel costs, and to compensate vessels for expenses incurred during the collection of the set-aside species. For example, the funds may be used to pay for gear modifications, monitoring equipment, additional provisions (e.g., fuel, ice, food for scientists), or the salaries of research personnel. The Federal Government is not liable for any costs incurred by the researcher or vessel owner should the sale of the excess catch not fully reimburse the researcher or vessel owner for their expenses. If a research project is terminated for any reason prior to completion, any funds collected from the catch sold to pay for research expenses must be refunded to the U.S. Treasury. The Council, in consultation with the Commission, has incorporated the level of RSA (amounts or percentages) for each of the management areas into the final two years of the three year quota specification process. Final specifications were published in the **Federal Register** on April 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 68). NMFS will consider the recommended level of RSA as part of the associated rulemaking process. The estimated values of the set-aside allocations will vary, depending on market considerations prevailing at the time the research compensation trips are conducted. *Statutory Authority:* Grants issued through the RSA program are consistent with 16 U.S.C.1853(b)(11), 16 U.S.C. 1881a(e), and 16 U.S.C. 1881(c). Amendment 1 of the FMP established a process which allows herring set-aside for the RSA program to be awarded to selected RSA applicants to fund approved herring research. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.454, Unallied Management Projects. *Application Deadline:* Applications must be received on or before 5 p.m. EST, August 16, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Application information is available at *http://www.grants.gov* . Electronic copies of the Standard Forms for submission of research proposals may be found on the Internet in a PDF (Portable Document Format) version at *http://www.ago.noaa.gov/grants/appkit.shtml* . Delays may be experienced when registering with Grants.gov near the end of a solicitation period. Therefore, NMFS strongly recommends that you do not wait until the application deadline to begin the registration/application process through the Grants.gov Web site. Applicants without Internet access can contact Kelly A. Taranto, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, or by phone at 508-495-2312, or fax at 508-495-2004, or via e-mail at *kelly.taranto@noaa.gov* . To apply for this NOAA Federal funding opportunity, please go to *http://www.grants.gov* and use the following funding opportunity #NMFS-NEFSC-2008-2001107. *Information Contacts:* Information may be obtained from Paul Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, by phone at 978-465-0492, or fax at 978-465-3116; or Kelly A. Taranto, NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, or by phone at 508-495-2312, or fax at 508-495-2004, or via e-mail at *kelly.taranto@noaa.gov* . *Eligibility:* 1. Eligible applicants include institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, individuals, and state, local, and Native American tribal governments. Federal agencies and institutions are not eligible to receive Federal assistance under this notice. Additionally, employees of any Federal agency or Regional Fishery Management Council are ineligible to submit an application under this program. However, Council members who are not Federal employees may submit an application. 2. DOC/NOAA supports cultural and gender diversity and encourages women and minority individuals and groups to submit applications to the RSA program. In addition, DOC/NOAA is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that work in underserved areas. DOC/NOAA encourages proposals involving any of the above institutions. 3. DOC/NOAA encourages applications from members of the fishing community and applications that involve fishing community cooperation and participation. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* None required. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applicants will need to determine if their state participates in the intergovernmental review process. This information can be found at the following Web site: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html* . This information will assist applicants in providing either a Yes or No response to Item 16 of the Application Form, SF-424, entitled. “Application for Federal Assistance.”

(13)John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program *Summary Description:* The Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service is charged under the Marine Mammal Protection Act with facilitating the collection and dissemination of reference data on stranded marine mammals and health trends of marine mammal populations in the wild. Through cooperation with NMFS Regional Coordinators, local organizations and state and local government officials respond to and collect valuable data from stranded marine mammals as participants in the national Marine Mammal Stranding Network. The John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program is conducted by NOAA to provide Federal assistance to eligible members of the Stranding Network to:

(A)Support basic needs of organizations for response, treatment, and data collection from living and dead stranded marine mammals,

(B)fund scientific research objectives designed to answer questions about marine mammal strandings, health, or rehabilitation techniques utilizing data from living and dead stranded marine mammals, and

(C)support facility operations directly related to the recovery or treatment of stranded marine mammals and collection of data from living or dead stranded marine mammals. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that a maximum of $4M may be available for distribution under the FY 2008 annual competitive Prescott Program. The maximum Federal award for each grant cannot exceed $100,000, as stated in the legislative language (16 U.S.C. 1421f-1). Actual funding availability for this program is contingent upon Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional appropriations. Applicants are hereby given notice that these funds have not yet been appropriated for this program, and therefore exact dollar amounts cannot be given. There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. The total amount available may also be reduced by the use of funds to supplement the emergency assistance portion of the Prescott program if necessary. *Statutory Authority:* 16 U.S.C. 1421f-1. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.439 Marine Mammal Data Program. *Application Deadline:* Proposals must be postmarked or submitted online by 11:59 p.m. EDT on Monday, October 1, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* All applications should be submitted via the Grants.Gov Find and Apply Web site. Should you encounter a problem with submitting your application online, you may submit a paper proposal package (one signed original and two copies) to: NOAA/NMFS/Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, Attn: Michelle Ordono, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13620, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3283, phone 301-713-2322 ext 177. *Information Contacts:* Please visit the Prescott Grant Program Web site at: *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/prescott/* or contact Michelle Ordono or Sarah Wilkin at the NOAA/NMFS/Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13620, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3283, by phone at

(301)713-2322, or by fax at

(301)427-2525, or by e-mail at *PrescottGrantFR.comments@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* There are 3 categories of eligible stranding network participants that may apply for funds under this Program:

(1)Stranding Agreement

(SA)holders or their designee organizations;

(2)holders of researcher authorization letters issued by a NMFS Regional Administrator; and,

(3)state, local, eligible federal government or tribal employees or personnel. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* All proposals submitted must provide a minimum non-Federal cost share of 25 percent of the total budget (i.e., .25 × total project costs = total non-Federal share). Therefore, the total Federal share will be 75 percent or less of the total budget. The applicant can include a non-Federal cost share for more than 25 percent of the total budget, but this obligation will be binding. In order to reduce calculation error in determining the correct cost share amounts, we urge all applicants to use the cost share calculator on the Prescott Program Web page *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/prescott/proposals/costshare.htm* ). If a proposal does not comply with these cost share requirements, it will not be considered in this annual funding cycle. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications submitted under this program are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Any applicant submitting an application for funding is required to complete item 16 on SF-424 regarding clearance by the State Single Point of Contact

(14)Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program *Summary Description:* The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act established a fund (known as the S-K fund) that the Secretary of Commerce uses to provide grants or cooperative agreements for fisheries research and development projects addressed to any aspect of U.S. fisheries, including, but not limited to, harvesting, processing, marketing, and associated infrastructures. U.S. fisheries include any fishery, commercial or recreational, that is, or may be, engaged in by citizens or nationals of the United States, or citizens of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia. *Funding Availability:* Funding is contingent upon availability of Federal allocations. The program has sought funding for $5.3 million in grant awards. There are four individual program areas in which a single grant of approximately $1 million in each area will be issued. These programs involve:

(1)Cooperative research on right whale gear entanglement mitigation strategies;

(2)Strategies to minimize catch of Klamath River Chinook Salmon in mixed salmon fisheries on the West Coast;

(3)Efforts to understand impacts of reduced fishing effort in shrimp and reef fish (e.g. red snapper) fisheries on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem; and

(4)Support for the New England fishing industry in cooperative groundfish survey projects related to the change in trawl survey procedures. For the remaining $1.3 million, we anticipate awarding 8-10 grants of approximately $100,000 to $250,000 each. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been allocated for this program. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program is provided under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act (S-K Act), as amended (15 U.S.C. 713c-3). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.427, Fisheries Dev and Utilization Research and Dev Grants and Coop Agreements Program. *Application Deadline:* Applications should be submitted electronically through the Federal grants portal— *http://www.grants.gov* and must be received by 5 p.m. EST on October 1, 2007. Grants.gov provides a date and time indicator for timeliness. Facsimile transmission and electronic mail submission of applications will not be accepted. Hard copies may only be sent if an applicant does not have Internet access. Hard copy applications will be date and time stamped when they are received. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications submitted in response to this announcement should be submitted electronically through the Federal grants portal— *http://www.grants.gov.* Electronic access to the full funding announcement for this program is also available through this Web Site. Hard copies may only be sent if an applicant does not have Internet access. They must be received by the deadline. These should be addressed to SK Competitive Program, Attn: Steve Aguzin, National Marine Fisheries Service, F/MB5-SSMC3, Room 13134, 1315 East West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282. *Information Contacts:* The point of contact is: Steve Aguzin, S-K Program Manager, NOAA/NMFS (F/MB5); 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13134; Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282; or by Phone at

(301)713-2358 ext. 215, or fax at

(301)713-1306, or via e-mail at *Stephen.Aguzin@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* You are eligible to apply for a grant or a cooperative agreement under the Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program if: 1. You are a citizen or national of the United States; 2. You are a citizen of the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), being an individual who qualifies as such under section 8 of the Schedule on Transitional Matters attached to the constitution of the NMI; 3. You are a citizen of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, or the Federated States of Micronesia; or 4. You represent an entity that is a corporation, partnership, association, or other non-Federal entity, non-profit or otherwise (including Indian tribes), if such entity is a citizen of the United States or NMI, within the meaning of section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 802). We support cultural and gender diversity in our programs and encourage women and minority individuals and groups to submit applications. Furthermore, we recognize the interest of the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior in defining appropriate fisheries policies and programs that meet the needs of the U.S. insular areas, so we also encourage applications from individuals, government entities, and businesses in U.S. insular areas. We are strongly committed to broadening the participation of Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities, in our programs, including S-K. Therefore, we encourage all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs. We encourage applications from members of the fishing community, and applications that involve fishing community cooperation and participation. We will consider the extent of fishing community involvement when evaluating the potential benefit of funding a proposal. You are not eligible to submit an application under this program if you are an employee of any Federal agency; a Council; or an employee of a Council. However, Council members who are not Federal employees can submit an application to the S-K Program. Our employees (whether full-time, part-time, or intermittent) are not allowed to help you prepare your application, except that S-K Program staff may provide you with information on program goals, funding priorities, application procedures, and completion of application forms. Since this is a competitive program, NMFS and NOAA employees will not help with conceptualizing, developing, or structuring proposals, or write letters of support for a proposal. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* We are requiring cost sharing in order to leverage the limited funds available for this program and to encourage partnerships among government, industry, and academia to address the needs of fishing communities. You must provide a minimum cost share of 10 percent of total project costs, but your cost share must not exceed 50 percent of total costs. You may find this formula useful: 1. Total Project Cost (Federal and non-Federal cost share combined) × .9 = Maximum Federal Share. 2. Total Cost − Federal share = Applicant Share. For example, if the proposed total budget for your project is $100,000, the maximum Federal funding you can apply for is $90,000 ($100,000 × .9). Your cost share in this case would be $10,000 ($100,000−$90,000). For a total project cost of $100,000, you must contribute at least $10,000, but no more than $50,000 (10-50 percent of total project cost). Accordingly, the Federal share you apply for would range from $50,000 to $90,000. If your application does not comply with these cost share requirements, we will return it to you and will not consider it for funding. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications submitted by state and local governments are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Any applicant submitting an application for funding is required to complete item 16 on SF-424 regarding clearance by the State Single Point of Contact

(1)CRCP-State and Territory Coral Reef Management Grants *Summary Description:* The NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program, as authorized under the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, provides matching grants to Governor-appointed point of contact agencies for the jurisdictions of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), Florida, Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa for coral reef management activities. The objective of the State and Territory Coral Reef Management Grant program is to support comprehensive management programs for the conservation of coral reef ecosystems in these jurisdictions. *Funding Availability:* Funding up to $3,000,000 is expected to be available from OCRM and DOI/OIA for cooperative agreements to support priority coral reef management activities that address areas a-j above. There is no appropriation of funds at this time and the final funding amount will be subject to the availability of federal appropriations. Support in out-years following FY2008 is likewise contingent upon the availability of future funding and the requirements of the Federal agency supporting the project (DOC or DOI). Each eligible jurisdiction can apply for a maximum $600,000. A minimum of 40% of the final award amount must be dedicated to the implementation and support of the Local Action Strategy initiative in each jurisdiction. In certain instances, when requested by the applicant and agreed upon by NOAA and DOI, NOAA may hold back a portion of any awarded funds in order to provide specific coral reef conservation technical assistance in the form of contractual or other services. This will only be allowed where such priority technical assistance and/or the lack of sufficient means to deliver it are unavailable at the local level. Such requests proposed herein will be reviewed on a case by case basis with respect to the specific management objectives of this and the local coral reef program. If all funds that become available after Congressional appropriation are not awarded, NOAA and DOI will consult with the eligible applicants on the use of any residual funds. NOAA and DOI will work with each jurisdiction to ensure the greatest degree of success in meeting local, state, territorial and national coral reef management needs. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program is provided by Section 6403 (Coral Reef Conservation Program) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6401 *et seq* ). *Catalog Of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.419, Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards. *Application Deadline:* Pre-applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, November 6, 2007. Final applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, February 22, 2008. *Address For Submitting Proposals:* Pre-applications should be submitted electronically by e-mail to: *coral.grants@noaa.gov.* If internet access is not available, submissions by surface mail should be sent to: David Kennedy, NOAA National Ocean Service, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Office of Response and Restoration, N/ORR, Room 10102, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Final applications should be submitted electronically to: *www.grants.gov* , the Federal grants portal. If internet access is unavailable, hard copies can be submitted to: David Kennedy, NOAA National Ocean Service, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Office of Response and Restoration, N/ORR, Room 10102, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. *Information Contacts:* Technical point of contact for State and Territory Coral Reef Management is Dana Wusinich-Mendez at 301-713-3155, extension 159 or e-mail at *dana.wusinich-mendez@noaa.gov.* FAX; 301-713-4367. Address: OCRM/NOAA, N/-ORM3, 1305 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910. *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are the governor-appointed point of contact agencies for coral reef activities in each of the jurisdictions of American Samoa, Florida, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.Virgin Islands. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* As per section 6403(b)(1) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, Federal funds for any coral conservation project funded under this Program may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the projects. Therefore, any coral conservation project under this program requires a 1:1 match. Match can come from a variety of public and private sources and can include in-kind goods and services such as private boat use and volunteer labor. Federal sources cannot be considered for matching funds, but can be described in the budget narrative to demonstrate additional leverage. Applicants are permitted to combine contributions from multiple non-federal partners in order to meet the 1:1 match recommendation, as long as such contributions are not being used to match any other funds. Applicants must specify in their proposal the source(s) of match and may be asked to provide letters of commitment to confirm stated match contributions. Applicants whose proposals are selected for funding will be bound by the percentage of cost sharing reflected in the award document signed by the NOAA Grants Officer. Applicants should be prepared to carefully document matching contributions for each project selected to be funded. As per section 6403(b)(2) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, the NOAA Administrator may waive all or part of the matching requirement if the Administrator determines that the project meets the following two requirements: 1. No reasonable means are available through which an applicant can meet the matching requirement, and, 2. The probable benefit of such project outweighs the public interest in such matching requirement. In the case of a waiver request, the applicant must provide a detailed justification explaining the need for the waiver including attempts to obtain sources of matching funds, how the benefit of the project outweighs the public interest in providing match, and any other extenuating circumstances preventing the availability of match. Match waiver requests including the appropriate justification should be submitted as part of the final application package. Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, and in accordance with 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d), the Program shall waive any requirement for local matching funds for any project under $200,000 (including in-kind contribution) to the governments of Insular Areas, defined as the jurisdictions of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Please Note: eligible applicants choosing to apply 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d) should note the use of the waiver and the total amount of funds requested to be waived in the matching funds section of the respective application. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under the this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

(2)National Estuarine Research Reserve Land Acquisition and Construction Program FY08 *Summary Description:* The National Estuarine Research Reserve System consists of estuarine areas of the United States and its territories which are designated and managed for research and educational purposes. Each reserve within the system is chosen to represent different bio-geographic regions and to include a variety of ecosystem types in accordance with the classification scheme of the national program as presented in 15 CFR part 921. Through the funding of designated reserve agencies and universities to undertake land acquisition and construction projects that support the NERRS purpose, NOAA will strengthen protection of key land and water areas; enhance long-term protection of the area for research and education; and provide for facility and exhibit construction. *Funding Availability:* This funding opportunity announces that approximately $7.178 million may be available to designated reserve agencies or universities only through this announcement for fiscal year 2008. Awards will be issued as competitive grants. It is anticipated that the awards will run for up to two years. In the past, funding for land acquisition/construction awards has ranged in amount from approximately $50,000 to $3 million. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for the NERR program is provided by 16 U.S.C. 1461 (e)(1)(A)(i),(ii), and (iii). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.420, Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves. *Application Deadline:* Complete grant application proposals must be submitted to Grants.gov by Friday, 6 p.m., Eastern standard time, November 30, 2007. Notification regarding the selection of proposals will be issued on or about January 18, 2008. The grant awards will start the first day of the month beginning June 1 through November 1, 2008. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications should be submitted through *www.grants.gov.* For applicants without internet access, contact Doris Grimm, NOAA/OCRM/ERD, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 10501; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or by phone at 301-713-3155, ext. 107. *Information Contacts:* Administrative and Technical questions regarding the program and application process, please contact Doris Grimm, program coordinator, at NOAA/Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, SSMC4, Station 10509, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or via phone: 301-713-3155 ext. 107, e-mail: *doris.grimm@noaa.gov,* or fax: 301-713-4363. The program Web site can be accessed at *www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/nerr.html.* Other questions should be directed to Doris Grimm at 301-713-3155, extension 107, *doris.grimm@noaa.gov* or Laurie McGilvray at

(301)713-3155 ext. 158, *laurie.mcgilvray@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are National Estuarine Research Reserves

(NERR)lead state agencies or universities in coastal states. Eligible applicants should have completed all requirements as stated in the NERRS regulations [CITE 15 CFR 921] Title 15—Commerce and Foreign Trade, Chapter IX—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Part 921—National Estuarine Research Reserve System. regulations, *http://nerrs.noaa.gov/Background_Regulations.html.* *Cost Sharing Requirements:* The amount of federal funds requested must be matched by the applicant: 30 percent total project match for construction awards and 50 percent total project match for land acquisition awards. Cash or in-kind contributions directly benefiting the project may be used to satisfy the matching requirements. If using Reserve land acquisition banked match, a list of the banked match must be included with the application. Applicants must identify all match sources and amounts equal to that requested above. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Applicants should contact their State Single Point of Contact

(SPOC)to find out about and comply with the States process under EO12372. The names and addresses of the SPOCs are listed in the Office of Management and Budgets Web site at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.*

(3)2008 CRCP Coral Reef Ecosystem Monitoring *Summary Description:* The NOAA Coral Reef Monitoring Grant Program, as authorized under the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, provides matching grants to Governor appointed point of contact agencies for the jurisdictions of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), Florida, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia (including Chuuk, Yap, Kosrae, and Pohnpei), and the Republic of the Marshall Islands to support State and Territory Coral Reef Monitoring activities. *Funding Availability:* NCCOS may provide approximately $1,100,000 in funding for FY 2008 to support coral reef ecosystem monitoring activities under this program. FY 2008 awards to Puerto Rico, Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are expected to range from $50,000 to $130,000. FY 2008 awards to the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM—including Chuuk, Yap, Kosrae, and Pohnpei), Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands

(RMI)are expected to be approximately $10,000 to $30,000 per year. Funding will be subject to the availability of federal appropriations. FY 2008 grant seekers may submit proposals up to three years in duration, at funding levels specified above (i.e., up to $90,000 for three year proposals for Palau, FSM, and RMI, and up to $390,000 for three year proposals for all other eligible applicants). In certain instances, when requested by the applicant and agreed upon by NOAA, NOAA may hold back a portion of any awarded funds in order to provide specific technical assistance in the form of contractual or other services. This will only be allowed where such priority technical assistance and/or the lack of sufficient means to deliver it are unavailable at the local level. Such requests proposed herein will be reviewed on a case by case basis with respect to the specific management objectives of this and the local coral reef program. If all available funds are not awarded, NOAA will consult with the eligible applicants on the use of any residual funds. NOAA will work with each jurisdiction to ensure the greatest degree of success in meeting local, state, territorial, and national coral reef monitoring needs. *Statutory Authority:* 16 U.S.C. 6403. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.426, Financial Assistance for National Centers for Central Coastal Ocean Science. *Application Deadline:* Pre-Applications Due: 11/6/2007 Final Applications Due: 02/22/2008. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Pre-applications may be submitted by surface mail or e-mail. Submissions by encrypted e-mail are preferred. If submitting by surface mail, applicants are encouraged to include an electronic copy of the pre-application on disk or CD-ROM. Pre-applications must be sent to *coral.grants@noaa.gov* or to Jenny Waddell, NOAA National Ocean Service, N/SCI-1, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Final applications should be submitted via *www.grants.gov,* the Federal grants portal. *Information Contacts:* The technical point of contact for State and Territory Coral Reef Monitoring is Jenny Waddell. She can be reached at 301-713-3028 extension 174 or by *e-mail* at *jenny.waddell@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are limited to a natural resource management agency in each U.S. State or Territory, or Freely Associated State, with jurisdiction over coral reefs, as designated by the respective governors or other applicable senior jurisdictional official. NOAA is requesting proposals from Puerto Rico, Florida, U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Federal agencies are not eligible for funding under this Program. Furthermore, to be eligible for FY 2008 funding, applicants previously receiving funds under this program must have made significant progress implementing those tasks and met data submission deadlines, including all performance and fiscal reporting requirements and data transfers. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* As per section 6403(b)(1) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, Federal funds for any coral conservation project funded under this Program may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the projects. Therefore, any coral conservation project under this program requires a 1:1 match. Matching funds must be from non-Federal sources and can include in-kind contributions and other non-cash support. NOAA strongly encourages applicants to leverage as much investment as possible. Federal funds may not be considered as matching funds. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

(4)National Estuarine Research Reserve Graduate Research Fellowship Program FY08 *Summary Description:* The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) consists of estuarine areas of the United States and its territories which are designated and managed for research and educational purposes. Each reserve within the system is chosen to reflect regional differences and to include a variety of ecosystem types in accordance with the classification scheme of the national program as presented in 15 CFR part 921. Each reserve supports a wide range of beneficial uses of ecological, economic, recreational, and aesthetic values which are dependent upon the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem. The sites provide habitats for a wide range of ecologically and commercially important species of fish, shellfish, birds, and other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Each reserve has been designed to ensure its effectiveness as a conservation unit and as a site for long-term research and monitoring. As part of a national system, the reserves collectively provide an excellent opportunity to address research questions and estuarine management issues of national significance. For detailed descriptions of the sites, refer to the NERR Web site at *http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/fellowship* or contact the site staff. *Funding Availability:* The National Estuarine Research Reserve System of NOAA announces the availability of graduate research fellowships. The Estuarine Reserves Division anticipates that 25 Graduate Research Fellowships will be competitively awarded to provide funding to qualified graduate students whose research occurs within the boundaries of at least one reserve. Minority students are encouraged to apply. The amount of the fellowship is $20,000; at least 30% of total project cost match is required by the applicant (i.e. $8,572 match for $20,000 in federal funds for a total project cost of $28,572). *Statutory Authority:* Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1461, establishes the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). 16 U.S.C. 1461(e)(1)(B) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to any coastal state or public or private person for purposes of supporting research and monitoring within a National Estuarine Research Reserve that are consistent with the research guidelines developed under subsection (c). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.420, Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves. *Application Deadline:* Applications must be no later than 11 pm

(EST)November 1, 2007 or postmarked no later than November 1, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications submitted in response to this announcement are strongly encouraged to be submitted through the *www.grants.gov* web site no later than November 1, 2007 at 11 pm (EST). Electronic access to the full funding announcement for this program is available via the *www.grants.gov* Web site. The announcement will also be available by contacting Susan White with the Estuarine Reserves Division at *Susan.White@noaa.gov* or 301-713-3155 x 124. If internet access is not available, paper applications (a signed original and two copies) should be submitted to the Estuarine Reserves Division at the following address postmarked by November 1, 2007: Attn: Dr. Susan White, NOAA/Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway, Room 10626, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. *Information Contacts:* For questions regarding the program and application process, please contact Susan White (301-713-3155 ext. 124) at NOAA/Estuarine Reserves Division, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, SSMC4, Station 10626, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or via *e-mail: susan.white@noaa.gov* , or fax: 301-713-4012. The program Web site can be accessed at *http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/fellowship.* If the Web page does not provide sufficient information and Dr. White is unavailable, please contact Erica Seiden at

(301)713-3155 ext. 172 or *erica.seiden@noaa.gov.* For further information on specific research opportunities at National Estuarine Research Reserves, contact the site staff listed in Appendix I. *Eligibility:* Awards are normally made to the fellow's graduate institution through the use of a grant. However, institutions eligible to receive awards include institutions of higher education, other non-profits, commercial organizations, and state and local governments. All reserve staff are ineligible to submit an application for a fellowship under this announcement. Funds are expected to be available on a competitive basis to qualified graduate students for research within a reserve(s) leading to a graduate degree. Applicants must be admitted to or enrolled in a full-time master's or doctoral program at a U.S. accredited university in order to be eligible to apply. Applicants should have completed a majority of their graduate course work at the beginning of their fellowship and have an approved thesis research program. Minority students are encouraged to apply. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* Requested federal funds must be matched by at least 30 percent of the TOTAL cost, not the federal share, of the project (i.e. $8,572 match for $20,000 in federal funds for a total project cost of $28,572). Requested overhead costs under fellowship awards are limited to 10% of the federal amount. Waived overhead costs may be used as match. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” Applicants should contact their State Single Point of Contact

(5)FY08 California Bay Watershed Education and Training Program *Summary Description:* The California B-WET grant program, is a competitively based program that supports existing environmental education programs, fosters the growth of new programs, and encourages the development of partnerships among environmental education programs throughout the San Francisco Bay, Monterey Bay, and Santa Barbara Channel watersheds. Funded projects provide Meaningful Watershed Experiences to students and teachers. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that approximately $1,650,000 may be available in FY2008 in award amounts to be determined by the proposals and available funds. About $700,000 will be made available to the San Francisco Bay watershed area, $600,000 will be made available to the Monterey Bay watershed area, and about $350,000 will be made available to the Santa Barbara Channel watershed area. The National Marine Sanctuary Program anticipates that approximately 35 grants will be awarded with these funds. The California B-WET Program should not be considered a long-term source of funds; applicants must demonstrate how ongoing programs, once initiated, will be sustained. The National Marine Sanctuary Program anticipates that typical project awards for Meaningful Watershed Experiences and Professional Development in the Area of Environmental Education for Teachers will range from $10,000 to $60,000. Proposals will be considered for funds greater than the specified ranges if there is sufficient demonstration that the project requires additional funds and/or if the proposal includes multiple partners. There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the government. Notwithstanding verbal or written assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation on the part of NOAA to cover pre-award costs unless approved by the Grants Officer as part of the terms when the award is made. *Statutory Authority:* 16 U.S.C. 1440. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.429, Marine Sanctuary Program. *Application Deadline:* Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific Standard time October 9, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit applications electronically through *http://www.grants.gov.* If internet access is not available, paper applications, a signed original and 2 copies (submission of ten additional hard copies is strongly encouraged to expedite the review process, but it is not required) may be submitted to Attn: Seaberry Nachbar, B-WET Program Manager, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Office, 299 Foam Street, Monterey, CA 93940. The closing deadline for applying through grants.gov is the same as for the paper submission noted in this announcement. *Information Contacts:* Please visit the National Marine Sanctuaries B-WET Web site for further information at: *http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/BWET* or contact Seaberry Nachbar, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary office; 299 Foam Street, Monterey, CA 93940, or by phone at 831-647-4201, or fax to 831-647-4250, or via Internet at *seaberry.nachbar@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are K-through-12 public and independent schools and school systems, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, state or local government agencies, and Indian tribal governments. The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, tribal colleges and universities, and institutions that service undeserved areas. The National Marine Sanctuary Program encourages proposals involving any of the above institutions. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* No cost sharing is required under this program; however, the National Marine Sanctuary Program strongly encourages applicants applying for either area of interest to share as much of the costs of the award as possible. Funds from other Federal awards may not be considered matching funds. The nature of the contribution (cash versus in-kind) and the amount of matching funds will be taken into consideration in the review process with cash being the preferred method of contribution. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

(6)Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program, Hawaii *Summary Description:* The B-WET Hawaii Programs Grant Opportunity is an annually awarded, competitively-based grant that provides initial funding to:

(1)Assist in the development of new programs;

(2)encourage innovative partnerships among environmental education programs throughout Hawaii;

(3)support geographically targeted programs to advance environmental education efforts that complement appropriate school requirements. The program supports NOAAs goal of developing a well-informed citizenry involved in decision-making that positively impact our coastal, marine and watershed ecosystems. Funded projects provide meaningful science-based outdoor experiences for K-12 students and professional development opportunities for teachers in the area of environmental education as defined in this announcement. *Funding Availability:* This solicitation announces that approximately $1,000,000 may be available in FY 2008 in award amounts to be determined by the proposals and available funds. The NOAA Pacific Services Center anticipates that approximately 5 to 15 grants will be awarded with these funds, pending availability of funds. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been appropriated for this program. It is anticipated that typical project awards for Priority 1 and 2 will range from approximately $10,000 to $100,000. Applications requesting Federal support from NOAA of more than $100,000 total will not be considered for review or funding. There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the government. Notwithstanding verbal or written assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation on the part of NOAA to cover pre-award costs unless approved by the Grants Officer as part of the terms when the award is made. *Statutory Authority:* 15 U.S.C. 1540; 33 U.S.C. 883d. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.473, Coastal Services Center. *Application Deadline:* Full proposals must be received through Grants.gov no later than 11 p.m. ET/5 p.m. Hawaii time, August 15, 2007. If applicants do not have Internet access and submit through surface mail, full proposals must be received no later than 11 p.m. ET/5 p.m. Hawaii time, August 15, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Full proposal application packages should be submitted through Grants.gov/APPLY. The standard NOAA funding application package is available at *www.grants.gov.* Please be advised that potential funding applicants must register with Grants.gov before any application materials can be submitted. An organization's one time registration process may take up to three weeks to complete so please allow sufficient time to ensure applications are submitted before the closing date. The Grants.gov site contains directions for submitting an application, the application package (forms), and is also where the completed application is submitted. If the applicant has difficulty downloading the required forms, the applicant should contact the Grants.gov Customer Support at 1-800-518-4726 or *support@grants.gov.* Additional information about registering and submitting an application through Grants.gov may be found at *www.Grants.gov* and at the B-WET Hawaii Web page at *http://www.csc.noaa.gov/psc/bwet.html.* Applicants using Grants.gov must locate the downloadable application package for this solicitation by the Funding Opportunity Number or the CFDA number (11.473). Applicants will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it off line, and then upload and submit the application via the Grants.gov site. After electronic submission of the application, the person submitting the application will receive within the next 24 to 48 hours two e-mail messages from Grants.gov updating them on the progress of their application. The first e-mail will confirm receipt of the application by the Grants.gov system, and the second will indicate that the application has either been successfully validated by the system prior to transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected due to errors. After the application has been validated, this same person will receive another e-mail when the application has been downloaded by the federal agency. To use Grants.gov, applicants must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number and be registered in the Central Contractor Registry (CCR). Allow a minimum of five days to complete the CCR registration. ( **Note:** Your organization's Employer Identification Number

(EIN)will be needed on the application form.) With regard to rural areas for an applicant who does not have Internet access, application kits may be requested from Sam Thomas, Federal Program Officer for grants at 808-532-3960. These applicants are asked to mail one

(1)hard copy of the entire application package, a CD copy of the package, including all forms with original signatures to the following address: NOAA Pacific Services Center, 737 Bishop Street, Suite 1550, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, ATTN: Sam Thomas. The postmark will be used to determine the timeliness of the proposal. Hand-delivered, facsimile transmissions and electronic mail submissions and proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted. *Information Contacts:* For administrative issues and technical questions, please contact Sam Thomas, Federal Program Officer for Grants, NOAA Pacific Services Center office; 737 Bishop Street, Mauka Tower, Suite 1550, Honolulu, HI 96813-3212, or by phone at

(808)532-3960, or via *e-mail* at *Sam.Thomas@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants for Priority 1 and 2 are K-12 public and independent schools and school systems, institutions of higher education, commercial and nonprofit organizations, state or local government agencies, and Indian tribal governments. Applicants that are not eligible are individuals and Federal agencies. The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC/NOAA) is strongly committed to broadening the participation of historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal colleges and universities, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian institutions, and institutions that service undeserved areas. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* No cost sharing is required under this program, however, the NOAA Pacific Services Center strongly encourages applicants to share as much of the costs of the award as possible. Funds from other Federal awards may not be considered matching funds. The nature of the contribution (cash versus in-kind) and the amount of matching funds will be taken into consideration in the review process with cash being the preferred method of contribution. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

(7)CSCOR FY08 Regional Ecosystem Prediction Program *Summary Description:* The purpose of this document is to advise the public that NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/CSCOR is soliciting proposals for three separate regional ecosystem prediction projects on Invasive Species in the Great Lakes—A Regional Scale Approach, Cumulative Impacts of Stressors at the Land-Water Interface in the Mid-Atlantic and Ecosystem Goal-Setting in Coastal Waters and Reefs of South Florida; for the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic programs, projects will be of up to 5 years in duration. In the Great Lakes, proposals are requested for a regional-scale ecosystem research study investigating recent and future changes in water quality, habitats and populations of living resources in the context of invasive species. For the Mid-Atlantic region, proposals are requested for a regional-scale ecosystem research study investigating the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors at the land-water interface of estuaries and bays on recreationally, economically or ecologically important living resource populations and communities. Proposals for these two programs should be regional in scale, interdisciplinary, comprehensive, integrated, and multiple investigator to develop capabilities for innovative forecasts and predictions for improved management and control capabilities. For the South Florida program, proposals will be 2-3 years in duration. In the South Florida program, proposals are solicited to develop, undertake and conclude a consensus-building process that results in scientifically-based quantifiable goals for aquatic resources and habitats of the Florida Bay and Keys. Proposals should include a diverse and comprehensive team of managers, scientists and NGOs and be regional in scope. Proposals submitted to this solicitation should not have overlap with other active NCCOS/CSCOR programs including the Coastal Hypoxia Research Program (CHRP), Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB), Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB), and the Ecological Effects of Sea Level Rise or previously awarded grants (see *http://www.cop.noaa.gov* for program descriptions). Funding is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2008 Federal appropriations. It is anticipated that final recommendations for funding under this announcement will be made by April 2008 and that projects funded under this announcement will have a June through August start date. *Electronic Access:* Background information about the NCCOS/CSCOR efforts can be found at *http://www.cop.noaa.gov.* Proposals should be submitted through Grants.gov ( *http://www.grants.gov.* ) *Funding Availability:* Funding is contingent upon availability of Federal appropriations. NOAA is committed to continual improvement of the grants process and accelerating the award of financial assistance to qualified recipients in accordance with the recommendations of the Business Process Reengineering Team. In order to fulfill these responsibilities, this solicitation announces that award amounts will be determined by the proposals and available funds. Funds for the Invasive Species in the Great Lakes—A Regional Scale Approach and for the Cumulative Impacts of Stressors at the Land-Water Interface in the Mid-Atlantic programs typically will not exceed $500,000-$1,000,000 per project per year, exclusive of ship costs. It is anticipated that 1-3 projects will be awarded for each of these two programs with project duration of 3 to 5 years. The Ecosystem Goal-Setting in Coastal Waters and Reefs of South Florida program is expected to have a project duration of 2 to 3 years with funds not to exceed $500,000 per project per year. It is anticipated that 1 project will be awarded for this program. Support in out years after FY 2008 is contingent upon the availability of funds. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been appropriated for this program. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is cancelled because of other agency priorities. There is not guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. Publication of this notice does not obligate NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. If one incurs any costs prior to receiving an award agreement signed by an authorized NOAA official, one would do so solely at one's own risk of these costs not being included under the award. Publication of this notice does not obligate any agency to any specific award or to obligate any part of the entire amount of funds available. Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and agency policies, regulations and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards. *Statutory Authority:* For Invasive Species in the Great Lakes—A Regional Scale Approach and the Cumulative Impacts of Stressors at the Land-Water Interface in the Mid-Atlantic, the program authority is 16 U.S.C. 1456c. For Ecosystem Goal-Setting in Coastal Waters and Reefs of South Florida, the program authority is 33 U.S.C. 1442. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.478, Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research—Coastal Ocean Program. *Application Deadline:* The deadline for receipt of proposals at the NCCOS/CSCOR office is 3 p.m., Eastern Time for each of the three program elements for the Regional Ecosystem Prediction Program. Invasive Species in the Great Lakes—A Regional Scale Approach October 1, 2007, Cumulative Impacts of Stressors at the Land-Water Interface in the Mid-Atlantic October 15, 2007, Ecosystem Goal-Setting in Coastal Waters and Reefs of South Florida October 29, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Proposals must include evidence of linkages between the scientific questions and management needs, such as the participation of co-investigators from both scientific and management entities. Proposals previously submitted to NCCOS/CSCOR FFOs and not recommended for funding must be revised and reviewer or panel concerns addressed before resubmission. Resubmitted proposals that have not been revised will be returned without review. *Information Contacts:* Technical Information. Program Managers contact information is: Invasive Species in the Great Lakes A Regional Approach, Felix Martinez ( *felix.martinez@noaa.gov,* 301-713-3338 x 153); Cumulative Impacts of Stressors at the Land-Water Interface in the Mid-Atlantic, Elizabeth Turner ( *elizabeth.turner@noaa.gov,* 603-862-4680) and; Ecosystem Goal-Setting in Coastal Waters and Reefs of South Florida, Larry Pugh ( *larry.pugh@noaa.gov,* 301-713-3338 x 160). Business Management Information: Laurie Golden, NCCOS/CSCOR Grants Administrator, 301-713-3338/ext 151, Internet: *Laurie.Golden@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other non-profits, states, local governments, commercial organizations and Federal agencies that possess the statutory authority to receive financial assistance. Please note that:

(1)NCCOS/CSCOR will not fund any Federal Full Time Employee

(FTE)salaries, but will fund travel, equipment, supplies, and contractual personnel costs associated with the proposed work.

(2)Researchers must be employees of an eligible entity listed above; and proposals must be submitted through that entity. Non-Federal researchers should comply with their institutional requirements for proposal submission.

(3)Non-NOAA Federal applicants will be required to submit certifications or documentation showing that they have specific legal authority to receive funds from the Department of Commerce

(DOC)for this research.

(4)NCCOS/CSCOR will accept proposals that include foreign researchers as collaborators with a researcher who has met the above stated eligibility requirements.

(5)Non-Federal researchers affiliated with NOAA-University Cooperative/Joint Institutes should comply with joint institutional requirements; they will be funded through grants either to their institutions or to joint institutes. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* None. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), an opportunity for public notice and comment is not required for this notice relating to grants, benefits and contracts. Because this notice is exempt from the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared. It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

(8)Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program *Summary Description:* The Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program provides support for independent graduate-level studies in oceanography, marine biology or maritime archaeology (including all science, engineering, and resource management of ocean and coastal areas), particularly to women and minorities. Individuals who have been accepted into a graduate program and are U.S. citizens may apply. Scholarship selections are based on academic excellence, letters of recommendations, research and career goals, and financial need. Additional information about the scholarship can be obtained from the Web site: *http://www.fosterscholars.noaa.gov.* The program priorities for this opportunity support NOAA’s mission support goal of: Critical support—facilities, ships, aircraft, environmental satellites, data-processing systems, computing and communications systems. *Funding Availability:* Subject to appropriations, approximately $500,000 will be available for FY 2008. Approximately 5 to 10 new awards may be made, based on the availability of funds. The Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program provides yearly support of up to $32,000 per student (a 12-month stipend of $20,000 in addition to a tuition allowance of up to $12,000), and up to $20,000 support for a four to six week research collaboration at a NOAA facility. A maximum of $84,000 may be provided to masters students (up to 2 years of support and one research collaboration opportunity) and up to $168,000 may be provided to doctoral students (up to 4 years of support and two research collaboration opportunities). Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program recipients will also travel to Silver Spring, MD, for a mandatory NOAA orientation and to meet with leadership and staff from the National Marine Sanctuaries Program from May 26 to May 31, 2008. Awards will include travel expenses to attend the Scholarship Program orientation. *Statutory Authority:* 16 U.S.C. 1445c-1. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.429, Marine Sanctuary Program. *Application Deadline:* Completed applications must be received by the Program Manager between December 1, 2007 and February 8, 2008, at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applicants should submit their application via Grants.gov. Only those applicants who do not have access to the internet should submit a hard copy application. If a hard copy application is necessary, it should be sent to the Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program, Attention: Priti Brahma, NOAA Office of Education, Room 10725, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. *Information Contacts:* Send requests for information to *fosterscholars@noaa.gov* or mail requests to the attention of Priti Brahma, Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program, Office of Education, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 10725, Silver Spring, MD 20910. *Eligibility:* Only individuals who are United States citizens currently pursuing a masters or doctoral level degree in oceanography, marine biology or maritime archaeology (including all science, engineering, and resource management of ocean and coastal areas) are eligible for an award under this scholarship program. In addition, students must have and maintain a cumulative and term grade point average of 3.0 and maintain full-time student status every term for the duration of their award. Universities or other organizations may not apply on behalf of an individual. Prospective scholars do not need to be enrolled, but must be admitted to a graduate level program in order to apply for this scholarship. Eligibility must be maintained for each succeeding year of support and semi-annual reporting requirements, to be specified at a later date, will apply. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* There are no matching requirements for this award. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

(9)FY 2008 Implementation of Regional Integrated Ocean Observing Systems *Summary Description:* The Integrated Ocean Observing System

(IOOS)will efficiently link national and regional observations, data management, and modeling to provide required data and information on local to global scales. Regional coastal ocean observing systems (RCOOSs) are designed to complement the observing systems managed directly by federal agencies that meet national priorities. With the guidance of Regional Associations to understand regional priorities, RCOOSs provide the types of data, information, and products needed to address the estuarine and coastal issues experienced by the different regions, and to leverage the delivery and applicability of data collected by local data network nodes. NOAA views this announcement as an opportunity to demonstrate the regional observing system concept. To assist in the implementation of the regional component of IOOS, NOAA seeks proposals for one- to two-year grant or cooperative agreement projects, with an optional third year, that will result in a regional system that has been optimized to provide data and products that are tailored to regional needs. The regional system will provide data and information in forms and at rates designed to meet the needs of regional decision makers. To accomplish that task, the regional system will integrate existing observing system components, prioritize additional observing system acquisition, and construct products and data management processes to deliver data and information to the regional stakeholders for the benefit of the region. Proposals submitted will demonstrate the approach and benefits of integration and implementation at the scale of the Regional Association and should address the following: a) Regional deployment, operation and maintenance of sensors and platforms to address needs for data and information that have been clearly articulated by the Regional Associations as representative of their stakeholders. b) Regional participation in developing a data integration framework for data streams, quality assurance procedures, and data delivery. c) Generation of regional or appropriately-scaled products, including data and model output, that facilitate the development of value-added, targeted products for identified users. NOAA anticipates making multiple awards in response to this announcement. The program priorities for this opportunity support NOAA's mission support goal of: Weather and Water Serve Society's Needs for Weather and Water Information. Other goals are supported, but this is the goal the opportunity most closely addresses. *Funding Availability:* Total anticipated funding for all awards is approximately $25,000,000 and is subject to the availability of FY 2008 appropriations. Multiple awards are anticipated from this announcement. The anticipated federal funding per award (min-max) is approximately $500,000 to $3,500,000 per year. The anticipated number of awards ranges from four

(4)to ten (10), approximately, and will be adjusted based on available funding. *Statutory Authority:* Statutory authority for this program is provided under Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1456c (Technical Assistance); 33 U.S.C. 883d; and 33 U.S.C. 1442 (Research program investigating possible long-range effects of pollution, overfishing, and anthropogenically-induced changes of ocean ecosystems). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.473, Coastal Services Center. *Application Deadline:* Letters of Intent

(LOIs)must be received by the Coastal Services Center by 5 p.m. ET on September 12, 2007. Full proposals must be received by 5 p.m. ET, November 15, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* A letter of intent

(LOI)must be sent via e-mail to *IOOSfy2008@noaa.gov.* Applicants submitting a LOI should reference the Funding Opportunity Title (FY 2008 Implementation of Regional Integrated Ocean Observing Systems) as the subject line of the e-mail containing the LOI. If an applicant does not have Internet access, the applicant must submit through surface mail one original and two copies of the LOI to the Coastal Services Center. No fax copies will be accepted. LOIs submitted by mail must be received by NOAA Coastal Services Center no later than 5 p.m. ET, September 12, 2007. Any U.S. Postal Service correspondence should be sent to the attention of James Lewis Free, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413. Full proposal application packages should be submitted through Grants.gov. If an applicant does not have Internet access, the applicant must submit through surface mail one set of originals (signed) and two copies of the proposals and related forms to the Coastal Services Center. Full proposal application packages submitted by mail must be received by NOAA Coastal Services Center no later than 5 p.m. ET, November 15, 2007. Any U.S. Postal Service correspondence should be sent to the attention of James Lewis Free, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413. *Information Contacts:* For administrative questions, contact James Lewis Free, NOAA CSC; 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Room B-119, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413; or by phone at 843-740-1185, or by fax 843-740-1290, or via e-mail at *James.L.Free@noaa.gov.* For technical questions regarding this announcement, contact: Mary Culver, NOAA CSC; 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413; or by phone at 843-740-1250, or by fax 843-740-1298, or via e-mail at *Mary.Culver@noaa.gov;* or Geno Olmi, NOAA CSC; 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Room 1-132, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413; or by phone at 843-740-1230, or by fax 843-740-1313, or via e-mail at *Geno.Olmi@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible funding applicants are institutions of higher education, non-profit and for-profit organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions and foreign governments may not be the primary recipient of awards under this announcement, but are encouraged to partner with applicants when appropriate. Federal partners must identify the relevant statutory authorities that will allow for the receipt of funds. If applicants will have partners who would receive grant funds, the lead grantee will be expected to provide funds using subcontracts or other appropriate mechanisms to the project partners. If the partners are federal agencies other than NOAA, the grantee and the federal partner must use interagency agreements or otherwise take steps relevant to their organizations to ensure that funds can be transferred by the primary grantee and received by any federal partners. If a federal partner is a NOAA office, the funds will be transferred internally. Before non-NOAA Federal applicants may be funded, they must demonstrate that they have legal authority to accept funds in excess of their appropriation. Because of the nature of this competition, the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) is not an appropriate authority. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* There is no requirement for cost sharing. *Intergovernmental Review:* Funding applications under the Center are subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. It is the state agency's responsibility to contact their states Single Point of Contact

(SPCO)to find out about and comply with the states process under EO 12372. To assist the applicant, the names and addresses of the SPOCs are listed on the Office of Management and Budget's Web site *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.*

(10)FY 2008 Integrated Ocean Observing System Regional Association Support *Summary Description:* The Integrated Ocean Observing System Development Plan (OceanUS, 2006) calls for an integrated system of observations that support national and regional priorities. Regional priorities are to be determined by a comprehensive effort to engage stakeholders at the local and regional level. The responsibility for such engagement is directed to IOOS Regional Associations. With the guidance of Regional Associations to understand regional priorities and coordinate regional observing implementation, regional coastal ocean observing systems RCOOSs provide the types of data, information, and products needed to address the estuarine and coastal issues experienced by the different regions. IOOS Regional Associations provide the network and organization to ensure that local and regional data collection meets national as well as local needs. For the past few years, NOAA has been funding entities, through competitively awarded cooperative agreements, to engage stakeholders in the formation of IOOS Regional Associations. Proposals submitted under this announcement will further engage stakeholders in the formalization of the IOOS Regional Association. Projects funded under this announcement are expected to build on previous progress of the IOOS Regional Association and engage stakeholders in the conduct of the regional association, design a regional system to optimize deployment to meet regional needs, and coordinate with stakeholders (data providers, information users, and other interested parties) to achieve a unified network of data acquisition, management, and product development. The program priorities for this opportunity support NOAAs mission support goal of: Weather and Water Serve Society's Needs for Weather and Water Information. Other goals are supported, but this is the goal the opportunity most closely addresses. *Funding Availability:* Total anticipated funding for all awards is approximately $4,500,000 and is subject to the availability of FY 2008 and FY 2009 appropriations. Multiple awards are anticipated from this announcement. The anticipated federal funding per award (min-max) is $300,000 to $400,000 per year. The anticipated number of awards is approximately eleven (11). *Statutory Authority:* Statutory authority for this program is provided under Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1456c (Technical Assistance); 33 U.S.C. 883d; and 33 U.S.C. 1442 (Research program investigating possible long-range effects of pollution, overfishing, and anthropogenically-induced changes of ocean ecosystems). Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number: 11.473, Coastal Services Center. *Application Deadline:* Proposals must be received by no later than 5 p.m. ET, August 22, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Proposal application packages should be submitted through Grants.gov. The standard NOAA funding application package is available at *http://www.grants.gov.* If an applicant does not have Internet access, the applicant must submit through surface mail one set of originals (signed) and two copies of the proposals and related forms to the Coastal Services Center. No e-mail or fax copies will be accepted. Any U.S. Postal Service correspondence should be sent to the attention of Lisa Holmes, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413. *Information Contacts:* For administrative questions, contact Lisa Holmes, NOAA CSC, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Room 1-141, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413, or by phone at 843-740-1256, or by fax 843-740-1313, or via e-mail at *Lisa.Holmes@noaa.gov.* For technical questions regarding this announcement, contact Geno Olmi, NOAA CSC, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Room 1-132, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413, or by phone at 843-740-1230, or by fax 843-740-1313, or via e-mail at *Geno.Olmi@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible funding applicants are institutions of higher education, non-profit and for-profit organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions and foreign governments may not be the primary recipient of awards under this announcement, but are encouraged to partner with applicants when appropriate. Federal partners must identify the relevant statutory authorities that will allow for the receipt of funds. If applicants will have partners who would receive grant funds, the lead grantee will be expected to provide funds using subcontracts or other appropriate mechanisms to the project partners. If the partners are federal agencies other than NOAA, the grantee and the federal partner must use interagency agreements or otherwise take steps relevant to their organizations to ensure that funds can be transferred by the primary grantee and received by any federal partners. If a federal partner is a NOAA office, the funds will be transferred internally. Before non-NOAA Federal applicants may be funded, they must demonstrate that they have legal authority to accept funds in excess of their appropriation. Because of the nature of this competition, the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) is not an appropriate authority. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* N.A. *Intergovernmental Review:* Funding applications under the Center are subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. It is the state agency's responsibility to contact their states Single Point of Contact

(SPCO)to find out about and comply with the states process under EO 12372. To assist the applicant, the names and addresses of the SPOCs are listed in the Office of Management and Budgets home page at *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.*

(11)FY 2008 Oceans and Human Health Initiative, External Grants Program *Summary Description:* This funding opportunity is offered as part of NOAAs Oceans and Human Health Initiative

(OHHI)External Grants Program. The OHHI was established by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the Oceans and Human Health Act of 2004 and by the recognition of the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans (NOAA Administrator) that a national investment in research on oceans and human health would improve understanding of ocean and coastal ecosystems, allow prediction and prevention of ocean and coastal public health problems, and assist in realizing the potential of the oceans to contribute to the development of effective new treatments for human diseases and a greater understanding of human biology. The mission of the OHHI is to improve understanding and management of the ocean, coasts and Great Lakes to enhance benefits to human health and reduce public health risks. Toward that end, as the nations lead ocean agency, NOAAs OHHI investigates the relationship between environmental stressors, coastal condition and human health to maximize health benefits from the oceans, improve the safety of seafood and drinking waters, reduce beach closures, and detect emerging health threats. This funding opportunity is intended to engage the non-federal research community in research across the physical, chemical, biological, medical, public health and social sciences on priority issues for the OHHI. The specific priority areas for this funding opportunity are:

(1)Develop methods, tools, and technologies to identify, detect, or predict ocean-related public health risks from pathogens and chemical pollutants;

(2)Assess the economic and socio-cultural risk of ocean-related health threats from pathogens or chemical pollutants, and the benefits and value of health early warning systems or related information;

(3)Improve the healthful characteristics and minimize ocean-related contamination of seafood through either aquaculture techniques or tools to rapidly identify presence or virulence of toxins (e.g., ciguatera, domoic acid), chemical contaminants (including but not limited to pharmaceuticals and personal care products, flame retardants, current-use pesticides, surfactants and stain repellants), or pathogens. Research proposed under this priority area should engage public health and natural resource managers and decision-makers in order to optimize relevance of the proposed research for the development and delivery useful products and services. Links to ocean observing systems and their enabling regional governance structures or public health surveillance systems are strongly encouraged. The program priorities for this opportunity support NOAAs mission support goal of: Ecosystems To Protect, Restore, and Manage the Use of Coastal and Ocean Resources through an Ecosystem Approach to Management. Other goals are supported, but this is the goal the opportunity most closely addresses. *Funding Availability:* Total anticipated funding for all awards is expected to be between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 and is subject to the availability of FY 2008 appropriations for the OHHI. Multiple awards are anticipated from this announcement. The anticipated federal funding per award (min-max) is $100,000 to $1,000,000. The anticipated number of awards ranges from 7 to 14, approximately, and will be adjusted based on available funding. *Statutory Authority:* 31 U.S.C. 3102(d). *Catalog Of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.473, Coastal Services Center. *Application Deadline:* Letters of Intent

(LOIs)must be received by 5 p.m. ET on August 15, 2007. Full proposals must be received by 5 p.m. ET, November 15, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* LOIs must be sent via e-mail to *OHHI2008LOI@noaa.gov.* Funding applicants submitting a LOI should reference the Funding Opportunity Title (FY 2007 OHHI External Grant-LOI) as the subject line of the e-mail containing the LOI. Applicants submitting more than one LOI must submit separate e-mails containing each LOI. The lead PI identified in the LOI cover page should be from the organization that would receive the grant award. If an applicant does not have Internet access, the applicant must submit through surface mail one original and two copies of the LOI to the Coastal Services Center. No fax copies will be accepted. LOIs submitted by mail must be received by NOAA Coastal Services Center no later than 5 p.m. ET, September 12, 2007. Any U.S. Postal Service correspondence should be sent to the attention of James Lewis Free, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413. Full proposal application packages should be submitted through Grants.gov APPLY. If an applicant does not have Internet access, the applicant must submit through surface mail one set of originals (signed) and two copies of the proposals and related forms to the Coastal Services Center. No e-mail or fax copies will be accepted. Full proposal application packages submitted by mail must be received by NOAA Coastal Services Center no later than 5 p.m. ET, November 15, 2007. Any U.S. Postal Service correspondence should be sent to the attention of James Lewis Free, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413. All proposal package material must be submitted through Grants.gov or through surface mail by the submission deadline, including any letters of support. *Information Contacts:* For administrative questions, contact James Lewis Free, NOAA CSC; 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Room B-119, Charleston, South Carolina 29405-2413; or by phone at 843-740-1185, or by fax 843-740-1290, or via e-mail at *James.L.Free@noaa.gov.* For technical questions regarding this announcement, contact Paul A. Sandifer, NOAA, National Ocean Service, c/o Hollings Marine Laboratory; 331 Fort Johnson Road, Room A112; Charleston, SC 29412, or by phone at 843-762-8814, or by fax 843-762-8737, or via e-mail at *Paul.Sandifer@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible funding applicants are institutions of higher education, non-profit and for-profit organizations, international organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions and foreign governments may not be the recipient of awards under this announcement or receive any federal funds, but are encouraged to partner with applicants. If applicants will have partners who would receive grant funds, the lead grantee will be expected to move funds using subcontracts or other appropriate mechanisms to the project partners. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* There is no requirement for cost sharing. *Intergovernmental Review:* Funding applications under the Center are subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. It is the state agencys responsibility to contact their states Single Point of Contact

(12)International Coral *Summary Description:* The NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program, as authorized under the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, provides matching grants of financial assistance for international coral reef conservation projects. The Program solicits proposals under four funding categories:

(1)Promote Watershed Management in the Wider Caribbean, Brazil, and Bermuda;

(2)Regional Enhancement of Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness;

(3)Encourage the Development of National Networks of Marine Protected Areas in the Wider Caribbean, Bermuda, Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the South Pacific; and

(4)Promote Regional Socio—Economic Training and Monitoring in Coral Reef Management in the Wider Caribbean, Brazil, Bermuda, the Western Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, the South Pacific, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Each funding category has specific applicant and project eligibility criteria. *Funding Availability:* NOAA announces the availability of up to $500,000 in FY 2008 to support grants and cooperative agreements under the International Coral Reef Grant Program. These funds will be used to support financial assistance awards under the program categories listed in section IV. Applicants that are invited to submit a final application may be requested to revise award objectives, work plans, or budgets prior to submittal of the final application. The amount of funds to be awarded and the final scope of activities will be determined in pre-award negotiations among the applicant, NOAA Grants Management Division

(GMD)and relevant NOAA staff. Up to approximately $500,000 may be available in FY 2008 to support grants and cooperative agreements under this program. Approximately $75,000-$100,000 may be allocated to each of the four project categories listed below, with the following award ranges: 1. Watershed Management: $30,000-$50,000 2. Regional Management Effectiveness capacity building projects: up to $80,000 3. MPA National Networks: $40,000-$50,000 4. Regional Socio—Economic Monitoring projects: $15,000-$35,000 Pre- and final applications with requests over the limit of each category will NOT be accepted. Pre- and final applications must be submitted under only one of the above mentioned categories. Funding will be subject to the availability of federal appropriations. Support in outyears after FY 2008 is contingent upon the availability of funds. Applicants should never begin a project in expectation of funds under this program. IPO reserves the right to transfer any given proposal to another category within the International program if the proposal better addresses the criteria of another category. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program is provided by Section 6403 (Coral Reef Conservation Program) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6401 *et seq.* ). *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.463, Habitat Conservation. *Application Deadline:* Pre-applications must be received by NOAA by 11:59 p.m., U.S. Eastern Time, on Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2007. Final applications must be received by NOAA by 11:59 p.m. U.S. Eastern Time, on Friday, Feb. 22, 2008. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* The application process required by this FFO requires both a pre-application and final application, subject to the submission dates and times listed below. 1. Pre-application Submission Information Pre-applications may be submitted by surface mail or e-mail. Submissions by e-mail to *coral.grants@noaa.gov* are preferred. Electronic acceptable formats are limited to Adobe Acrobat (.PDF), WordPerfect or Microsoft Word files. If submitting by surface mail, applicants are encouraged to include an electronic copy of the pre-application or final application on disk or CD. Federal financial assistance forms are not required to be submitted with the pre-application. Paper pre-applications must be submitted to: David Kennedy, NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program Coordinator, Office of Response and Restoration, N/ORR, Room 10102, NOAA National Ocean Service, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Fax submittals will also be accepted for pre-applications (Fax: 301-713-4389). 2. Final Application Submission Information: Applicants who are invited to submit a final application may be required to make modifications or revisions to the project and budget narratives and must submit a Federal financial assistance award application package (federal forms described below). Only applicants who submitted pre-applications by the deadline will be eligible to be considered for invitations to submit a final application. The applicant may submit the final application (narratives, federal forms, and supporting documentation) in one of two ways: a. The preferred method is www.grants.gov: applicants will be strongly encouraged to submit the final applications through this secure Web site and guidance will be sent to those who will be chosen to submit a final application. Applicants are encouraged to log on to this portal Web site and begin a registration process at any time in preparation for this potential funding opportunity as well as other federal grant opportunities. The registration process can take 2-4 weeks. b. By electronic mail to *scot.frew@noaa.gov* including signed and scanned copies of all pages requiring original signatures and signed and scanned copies of original support letters. c. If internet access is not available, send one original signed copy by surface mail to Scot Frew, NOAA/NOS International Program Office, 1315 East West Highway, 5th Floor, N/IP, Room 5735, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Applicants should consider the delivery time when submitting their pre- and final applications from international or remote areas. Late applications by any method cannot be accepted under any circumstances. The required Federal financial assistance forms to accompany the final application are SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, CD-511, CD-512, and if applicable, CD-346 and/or SF-LLL. These forms can be obtained from the NOAA grants Web site at *http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/grants/pdf.* If internet access is not available, please contact: Scot Frew, NOAA/NOS International Program Office, 1315 East West Highway, 5th Floor, N/IP, Room 5735, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or telephone 301-713-3078 extension 220; or fax 301-713-4263. *Information Contacts:* Technical point of contact for International Coral Reef Conservation is Scot Frew, NOAA/NOS International Program Office, 301-713-3078, extension 220 or e-mail at *scot.frew@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants include all international, governmental (except U.S. federal agencies), and non-governmental organizations. For specific country eligibility per category, please refer to individual category descriptions in Section V. The proposed work must be conducted at a non-U.S. site. Eligible countries are defined as follows: The Wider Caribbean includes the 37 States and territories that border the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and the areas of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent thereto, and Brazil and Bermuda, but excluding areas under U.S. jurisdiction. The South Pacific Region includes South Pacific Regional Environment Programs Pacific island countries and territories, including the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, but excluding U.S. territories and four developed country members. South Asia includes India, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Southeast Asia Region includes Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The Western Indian Ocean Region includes Comoros, France (La Reunion), Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, the United Republic of Tanzania, and South Africa. The Red Sea Region includes five member countries of the Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA): Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* The International Coral Grant Program is subject to the matching fund requirements described below. As per section 6403(b)(1) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, Federal funds for any coral conservation project funded under this Program may not exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the projects. Therefore, any coral conservation project under this program requires a 1:1 match. Match can come from a variety of public and private sources and can include in-kind goods and services such as private boat use and volunteer labor. Federal sources cannot be considered for matching funds, but can be described in the budget narrative to demonstrate additional leverage. Applicants are permitted to combine contributions from multiple non-federal partners in order to meet the 1:1 match recommendation, as long as such contributions are not being used to match any other funds. Applicants must specify in their proposal the source(s) of match and may be asked to provide letters of commitment to confirm stated match contributions. Applicants whose proposals are selected for funding will be bound by the percentage of cost sharing reflected in the award document signed by the NOAA Grants Officer. Applicants should be prepared to carefully document matching contributions for each project selected to be funded. As per section 6403(b)(2) of the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, the NOAA Administrator may waive all or part of the matching requirement if the Administrator determines that the project meets the following two requirements: 1. No reasonable means are available through which an applicant can meet the matching requirement, and 2. The probable benefit of such project outweighs the public interest in such matching requirement. In the case of a waiver request, the applicant must provide a detailed justification explaining the need for the waiver including attempts to obtain sources of matching funds, how the benefit of the project outweighs the public interest in providing match, and any other extenuating circumstances preventing the availability of match. Match waiver requests including the appropriate justification should be submitted as part of the final application package. Notwithstanding any other provisions herein, and in accordance with 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d), the Program shall waive any requirement for local matching funds for any project under $200,000 (including in-kind contribution) to the governments of Insular Areas, defined as the jurisdictions of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Please Note: eligible applicants choosing to apply 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d) should note the use of the waiver and the total amount of funds requested to be waived in the matching funds section of the respective pre- and final applications. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under the International Coral Reef Grant program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service

(1)Research in Primary Vicarious Calibration of Ocean Color Satellite Sensors *Summary Description:* The Center for Satellite Applications and Research

(STAR)announces the availability of Federal assistance in the research area of ocean color satellite sensor calibration and validation. STAR is committed to improving the vicarious calibration capabilities of a Marine Optical Buoy

(MOBY)system located in Hawaii, with an ultimate goal of a continuous, climate-quality time-series of normalized water-leaving spectral radiances across multiple agency missions and ocean color satellite sensors. Research efforts are focused on the reduction of the total uncertainty budget in the determination of the normalized water-leaving radiances from MOBY measurements, improvements in the process used with the MOBY system for validation of ocean color satellite sensor retrievals of water-leaving spectral radiances, and the development of new MOBY system components which would increase measurement integrity. These advances in vicarious calibration capabilities would improve the quality and accuracy of ocean color satellite sensor bio-optical product retrievals. The program priorities for this opportunity support NOAAs mission support goal of: Mission Support—Provide Critical Support for NOAA's Mission. *Funding Availability:* Funding availability is anticipated to range from a minimum of $700,000 to a maximum of $1,300,000 per year for no more than three years. Only one applicant will receive an award. *Statutory Authority:* Statutory authority for this program is provided under 33 U.S.C. 883d and 33 U.S.C. 1442. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.440, Environmental Sciences, Applications, Data, and Education. *Application Deadline:* Proposals must be received by 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Savings Time on September 28, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* For proposals submitted through *http:/www.grants.gov,* a date and time receipt indication is included and will be the basis of determining timeliness. Hard copy proposals will be date and time stamped when they are received in the program office. Hard copy proposals should be sent to Marilyn Yuen-Murphy; DOC/NOAA/NESDIS/STAR; 5200 Auth Rd., Rm. 104; Camp Springs, MD 20746. *Information Contacts:* Marilyn Yuen-Murphy by telephone (301-763-8102 x159), fax (301-763-8020), or e-mail ( *Marilyn.Yuen.Murphy@noaa.gov* ); or Patty Mayo by telephone (301-763-8127 x107), fax (301-763-8108), or e-mail ( *Patty.Mayo@noaa.gov* ). *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are U.S. institutions of higher education, other non-profits, commercial organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* None. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

(2)Research in Satellite Data Assimilation for Numerical Weather, Climate, and Environmental Forecast Systems *Summary Description:* The NOAA/NASA/DOD Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation (JCSDA) announces the availability of Federal assistance for research in the area of Satellite Data Assimilation in Numerical Weather, Climate, and Environmental Forecast Systems. The goal of the JCSDA is to accelerate the use of observations from earth-orbiting satellites in operational numerical prediction models for the purpose of improving weather, ocean mesoscale, and other environmental forecasts, improving seasonal to interannual climate forecasts, and increasing the physical accuracy of climate reanalysis. The advanced instruments of current and planned NOAA, NASA, DOD, and international agency satellite missions will provide large volumes of data on atmospheric, oceanic, and land surface conditions with accuracies and spatial resolutions never before achieved. The JCSDA will strive to ensure that the Nation realizes the maximum benefit of its investment in space as part of an advanced global observing system. Funded proposals will help accelerate the use of satellite data from both operational and experimental spacecraft in operational weather, ocean mesoscale, climate, and environmental prediction environments, improve community radiative transfer models and surface emissivity models, improve characterization of the error covariances related to forecast models, radiative transfer models and satellite observations. The program priorities for this opportunity support NOAA's mission support goal of: Weather and Water—Serve Societys Needs for Weather and Water Information. *Funding Availability:* Total funding available for this Notice is anticipated to be approximately $600,000. Individual annual awards in the form of grants or cooperative agreements are expected to range from $50,000 to $150,000, although greater amounts may be awarded. It is anticipated that 4-6 awards will be made. *Statutory Authority:* Statutory authorities for this program are provided under 15 U.S.C. 313, 49 U.S.C. 44720(b); 15 U.S.C. 2901. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.440, Environmental Sciences, Applications, Data, and Education. *Application Deadline:* Letters of Intent

(LOI)must be received by NOAA/NESDIS no later than 5 p.m. eastern time, August 10, 2007. Full proposals must be received no later than 5 p.m. eastern time, October 2, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Letters of intent must be submitted to the JCSDA, NOAA/NESDIS, Attn: Dr. Fuzhong Weng, 5200 Auth Road, Room 808, Camp Springs, MD 20746. Letters of Intent can be faxed to 301-763-8149, or e-mailed to *Fuzhong.Weng@noaa.gov* with a copy to *Ada.Armstrong@noaa.gov.* Full proposals should be submitted through Grants.gov at *http://www.grants.gov* or those applicants without internet access, hard copy proposals (1 unbound original and 1 copy) may be sent to the above address. No facsimile applications will be accepted. *Information Contacts:* Administrative questions: Ms. Ada Armstrong, by phone at 301-763-8172 ext. 188, fax: 301-763-8149, or e-mail: *Ada.Armstrong@noaa.gov.* Technical questions: Fuzhong Weng (NOAA Program Officer), by phone at 301-763-8172 ext. 123, fax: 301-763-8149, or via e-mail: *Fuzhong.Weng@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applications can be from institutions of higher education, other non-profits, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments. U.S. Federal agencies or institutions are eligible to receive Federal assistance under this Notice. Please Note: Before non-NOAA Federal applicants may be funded, they must demonstrate that they have legal authority to receive funds from another Federal agency in excess of their appropriation. The only exception to this is governmental research facilities for awards issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 44720(b). Because this announcement is not proposing to procure goods or services from applicants, the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) is not an appropriate legal basis. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* No cost sharing nor matching is required under this program. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” National Weather Service

(1)Collaborative Science, Technology, and Applied Research (CSTAR) Program *Summary Description:* The CSTAR Program represents an NOAA/NWS effort to create a cost-effective transition from basic and applied research to operations and services through collaborative research between operational forecasters and academic institutions which have expertise in the environmental sciences. These activities will engage researchers and students in applied research of interest to the operational meteorological community and will improve the accuracy of forecasts and warnings of environmental hazards by applying scientific knowledge and information to operational products and services. The NOAA CSTAR Program is a contributing element of the U.S. Weather Research Program. NOAA's program is designed to complement other agency contributions to that national effort. The CSTAR Program addresses NOAA's Mission Goal 3—Serve society's needs for weather and water information. *Funding Availability:* The total funding amount available for proposals is anticipated to be approximately $250,000 per year. However, there is no appropriation of funds at this time and no guarantee that there will be. Individual annual awards in the form of cooperative agreements are limited to a maximum of $125,000 per year for no more than three years. We anticipate making 1-4 awards. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for the CSTAR program is provided by the following: 15 U.S.C. 313; 49 U.S.C. 44720(b); 33 U.S.C. 883d; 15 U.S.C. 2904; 15 U.S.C. 2934. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.468, Applied Meteorological Research. *Application Deadline:* Proposals must be received by the NWS no later than 5 p.m., EDT, October 19, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Proposals should be submitted through *www.grants.gov.* For those organizations without internet access, proposals may be sent to Sam Contorno, CSTAR Program Manager, NOAA/NWS, 1325 East-West Highway, Room 15330, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. *Information Contacts:* Contact Sam Contorno, NOAA/NWS; 1325 East-West Highway, Room 15330; Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3283, or by phone at 301-713-3557 ext. 150, by fax to 301-713-1253, or via e-mail at *samuel.contorno@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education and federally funded educational institutions such as the Naval Postgraduate School. This restriction is needed because the results of the collaboration are to be incorporated in academic processes which ensure academic multidisciplinary peer review as well as Federal review of scientific validity for use in operations. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* No cost sharing is required under this program. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

(1)Climate Program Office for FY 2008 *Summary Description:* The NOAA Climate Program represents a contribution to national and international programs designed to improve our ability to observe, understand, predict, and respond to changes in the global environment. The Program builds on NOAAs mission requirements and long-standing capabilities in climate and global change research and prediction. The Program is a key contributing element of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program

(CCSP)that is coordinated by the interagency Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources (CENR). NOAAs Climate Program is designed to complement other agencies contributions to that national effort. *Funding Availability:* NOAA believes that the Climate Program will benefit significantly from a strong partnership with outside investigators. Please be advised that actual funding levels will depend upon the final FY 2008 budget appropriations. In FY 2006, $6M in first year funding was available for 54 new awards; similar funds and number of awards are anticipated in FY 2008. Total Anticipated Federal Funding for FY 2008 is $6M in first year funding for 40-60 number of awards. Federal Funding for FY 2009 may be used in part to fund some awards submitted under this competition. Current plans assume that 100% of the total resources provided through this announcement will support extramural efforts, particularly those involving the broad academic community. Past or current grantees funded under this announcement are eligible to apply for a new award, which builds on previous activities or areas of research not covered in the previous award. Current grantees should not request supplementary funding for ongoing research through this announcement. We anticipate that the annual cost of most funded projects will fall between $50,000 and $200,000 per year. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Neither NOAA nor the Department of Commerce is responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program is not funded for whatever reason. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Awards are to be up to three years in length except where noted otherwise by the Program. *Statutory Authority:* 49 U.S.C. 44720(b), 33 U.S.C. 883d, 15 U.S.C. 2904, 15 U.S.C. 2931-2934. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.431, Climate and Atmospheric Research. *Application Deadline:* Letters of Intent for all Program Elements other than Assessing Meridional Overturning Circulation Variability: Implications for Rapid Climate Change should be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time, July 23, 2007. Full proposals for all Program Elements other than Assessing Meridional Overturning Circulation Variability: Implications for Rapid Climate Change must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time, September 24, 2007. Letters of Intent to the Assessing Meridional Overturning Circulation Variability: Implications for Rapid Climate Change Program Element should be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time October 5, 2007. Full proposals to the Assessing Meridional Overturning Circulation Variability: Implications for Rapid Climate Change Program Element must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time December 7, 2007. *Anticipated Award Date:* May 1, 2008. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* To apply for this NOAA federal funding opportunity, please go to *http://www.grants.gov,* and use the following funding opportunity # OAR-CPO-2008-2000994 to obtain a complete application package. If the applicant does not have Internet access, and would like to request a hard copy of a full application, please contact the CPO Grants Manager, Diane Brown, NOAA Climate Program Office (R/CP1), SSM3, Room 12112, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, by phone at 301-734-1206, or e-mail: *cpogrants@noaa.gov.* *Other Submission Requirements:*

(1)Location for Letter of Intent Submission: LOIs are encouraged to be submitted by e-mail to the identified NOAA program elements Program Manager. If an applicant does not have Internet access, LOI hard copies should be sent to the Program Managers listed with each program in the Program Priorities section.

(2)*Location for Application Submission:* Applications should be submitted through Grants.gov APPLY ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). If an applicant does not have Internet access, please contact the CPO Grants Manager (see below) for hard copy instructions. *Information Contacts:* Please visit the CPO Web site for further information *http://www.climate.noaa.gov/* or contact the CPO Grants Manager, Diane Brown, NOAA Climate Program Office (R/CP1), SSM3, Room 12112, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: 301-734-1206 Fax: 301-713-0158 E-mail: *cpogrants@noaa.gov.* *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, international organizations, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies or institutions are not eligible to receive Federal assistance under this notice. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* None of the Competitions have Cost Sharing requirements. *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of federal programs. Office of the Under Secretary

(1)Environmental Literacy Grants for Spherical Display Systems for Earth System Science-Installations and Content Development *Summary Description:* The NOAA Office of Education

(OEd)is issuing a request for applications from institutions with interest in developing exhibits featuring spherical display systems showing Earth system science, or developing science modules for these display systems. Spherical display systems are sphere-shaped “screens” onto which global data and other imagery can be shown. Awards will be offered in two priorities, with priority 1 supporting installation of spherical displays systems into public exhibits and priority 2 supporting development and evaluation of Earth system science modules for the spherical display systems. Awards in priority 1 will be made as one-year cooperative agreements and grants. Awards in priority 2 will be made as one or two-year grants. Successful priority 1 projects will support installation of spherical displays systems into public exhibits with an Earth system science theme. Successful priority 2 projects will support partnerships designed to create content focused on Earth system science topics for spherical display systems. The goal of this program is to build environmental literacy among the general public through increased use of NOAA and NOAA-related data and data products in informal education institutions. It is anticipated that recommendations for funding under this announcement will be made by January 30, 2008 and that projects funded under this announcement will have a start date no earlier than April 30, 2008, and possibly as late as March 30, 2009. This program meets NOAA's Mission Goal to provide Critical Support for NOAA's Mission. *Funding Availability:* NOAA anticipates the availability of approximately $4,000,000 of funding from FY08 and FY09. Actual funding availability for this program is contigent upon Fiscal Year 2008 and 2009 appropriations. Approximately $500,000 for each fiscal year may be dedicated to awards in priority 1. The total Federal amount that may be requested from NOAA for projects in priority 1 shall not exceed $100,000 including direct and indirect costs. Approximately $1,500,000 for each fiscal year may be dedicated to awards in priority 2. The total Federal amount that may be requested from NOAA for priority 2 shall not exceed $300,000 including direct and indirect costs. *Statutory Authority:* Authority for this program is provided by the following: 15 U.S.C. 1540. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 11.469, Congressionally Identified Awards and Projects. *Application Deadline:* The deadline for applications is 5 p.m. EDT on October 30, 2007. *Address for Submitting Proposals:* Applications should be submitted through Grants.gov APPLY ( *http://www.grants.gov* ). If an applicant does not have Internet access, paper applications will be accepted submitted by express delivery (U.S. mail is not recommended as it can take up to 4 weeks to reach the program office). Paper applications should be delivered to: Carrie McDougall, Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Office of Education, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6863, Washington, DC 20230. See the Office of Education's frequently asked questions site *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/dataviz_faqs.html* for more details. *Information Contacts:* Please visit the OEd Web site for further information at *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/funding_opps.html* or contact Carrie McDougall at

(202)482-0875 or *carrie.mcdougall@noaa.gov;* or John McLaughlin at

(202)482-2893 or *john.mclaughlin@noaa.gov.* For those applicants without Internet access, please contact Carrie McDougall via mail at DOC/NOAA Office of Education, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6863, Washington, DC 20230. *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, and state, local and Indian tribal governments in the United States. For profit organizations, foreign institutions, foreign organizations and foreign government agencies are not eligible to apply. For-profit organizations can be project partners. Federal agencies are not eligible to receive Federal assistance under this announcement, but may be project partners. An individual may apply only once per priority as principal investigator

(PI)through this funding opportunity. However institutions may submit more than one application and individuals may serve as co-PIs or key personnel on more than one application. *Cost Sharing Requirements:* There are no cost-sharing requirements. Applicant resource commitment will, however, be considered in the competitive selection process (see Evaluation Criteria, Project Costs in the Federal Funding Opportunity). *Intergovernmental Review:* Applications submitted to this funding opportunity are not subject to Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs. Limitation of Liability Funding for programs listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been appropriated for the programs listed in this notice. In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Universal Identifier Applicants should be aware that, they are required to provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number during the application process. See the October 30, 2002 **Federal Register** , (67 FR 66177) for additional information. Organizations can receive a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS Number request line at 1-866-705-5711 or via the Internet *http://www.dunandbradstreet.com.* National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/,* including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, *http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf,* and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, *http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm.* Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of non-indigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems). In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and implementing feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for the denial of not selecting an application. In some cases if additional information is required after an application is selected, funds can be withheld by the Grants Officer under a special award condition requiring the recipient to submit additional environmental compliance information sufficient to enable NOAA to make an assessment on any impacts that a project may have on the environment. Compliance With Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security Export Administration Regulations

(a)This clause applies to the extent that this financial assistance award involves access to export-controlled information or technology.

(b)In performing this financial assistance award, the recipient may gain access to export-controlled information or technology. The recipient is responsible for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding export-controlled information and technology, including deemed exports. The recipient shall establish and maintain throughout performance of the financial assistance award effective export compliance procedures at non-NOAA facilities. At a minimum, these export compliance procedures must include adequate controls of physical, verbal, visual, and electronic access to export-controlled information and technology.

(c)Definitions.

(1)*Deemed export.* The Export Administration Regulations

(EAR)define a deemed export as any release of technology or source code subject to the EAR to a foreign national, both in the United States and abroad. Such release is “deemed” to be an export to the home country of the foreign national. 15 CFR 734.2(b)(2)(ii).

(2)*Export-controlled information and technology.* Export-controlled information and technology is information and technology subject to the EAR (15 CFR 730 *et seq.* ), implemented by the DOC Bureau of Industry and Security, or the International Traffic I Arms Regulations

(ITAR)(22 CFR parts 120-130), implemented by the Department of State, respectively. This includes, but is not limited to, dual-us items, defense articles and any related assistance, services, software or technical data as defined in the EAR and ITAR.

(d)The recipient shall control access to all export-controlled information and technology that it possesses or that comes into its possession in performance of this financial assistance award, to ensure that access is restricted, or licensed, as required by applicable Federal laws, Executive Orders, and/or regulations.

(e)Nothing in the terms of this financial assistance award is intended to change, supersede, or waive and of the requirements of applicable Federal laws, Executive Orders or regulations.

(f)The recipient shall include this clause, including this paragraph (f), in all lower tier transactions (subawards, contracts, and subcontracts) under this financial assistance award that may involve access to export-controlled information technology. NOAA implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive—12 If the performance of a financial assistance award, if approved by NOAA, requires recipients to have physical access to Federal premises for more than 180 days or access to a Federal information system. Any items or services delivered under a financial assistance award shall comply with the Department of Commerce personal identity verification procedures that implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive—12, FIPS PUB 201, and the Office of Management and Budget Memorandum M-05-24. The recipient shall insert this clause in all subawards or contracts when the subaward recipient or contractor is required to have physical access to a Federally controlled facility or access to a Federal information system. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements. The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389) are applicable to this solicitation. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424 and 424A, 424B, SF LLL, CD-346, SF 424 Research and Related Family, SF 424 Short Organizational Family, SF 424 Individual Form family has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)under the respective control numbers 4040-0004, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, 0605-0001, 4040-0001, 4040-0003, and 4040-0005. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: June 26, 2007. Helen Hurcombe, Director, Acquisition and Grants Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. E7-12653 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-P 72 126 Monday, July 2, 2007 Proposed Rules Part V Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 Wholesale Competition in Regions With Organized Electric Markets; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 35 [Docket Nos. RM07-19-000 and AD07-7-000] Wholesale Competition in Regions With Organized Electric Markets June 22, 2007. AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE. ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) with regard to potential reforms to improve the operation of organized wholesale electric markets. The Commission invites all interested persons to submit comments in response to specific questions. DATES: Comments on this ANOPR are due on August 16, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Nos. RM07-19-000 and AD07-7-000 by one of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site:* *http://www.ferc.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the Comment Procedures section of the ANOPR. • *Mail:* Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer to the Comment Procedures section of the ANOPR for additional information on how to file paper comments. FOR FURTHER INF0RMATION CONTACT: David Kathan (Technical Information), Office of Energy Markets and Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *David.Kathan@ferc.gov* ,

(202)502-6404. Elizabeth Rylander (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, *Elizabeth.Rylander@ferc.gov* ,

(202)502-8466. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paragraph numbers I. Introduction 1 II. Background 4 A. Brief History 14 B. Competition Issues and Commission Actions 25 C. Issues Addressed in the ANOPR 30 III. Demand Response and Pricing During Power Shortages in Organized Markets 34 A. Importance of Demand Response to Competition in RTO/ISO Areas 36 B. Prior Commission Actions To Address Demand Response 41 C. Remaining Problems with Demand Response in Organized Markets 47 D. Proposed Commission Actions To Improve Demand Response and Market Pricing During a Power Shortage 57 IV. Long-Term Power Contracting in Organized Markets 83 A. Importance of Long-Term Power Contracts and Factors Affecting Contracting Decisions by Buyers and Sellers 84 B. Commission Actions To Support Long-Term Power Contracts 88 C. Proposed Commission Actions To Facilitate Long-Term Power Contracting 92 V. Market Monitoring Policies 95 A. History of Market Monitoring 98 B. Independence and Function 108 C. Information Sharing 122 D. Pro Forma Tariff Section 131 E. Conclusion 132 VI. Responsiveness of RTOS and ISOS 133 A. The Challenge of Improving RTO and ISO Responsiveness to Stakeholders 134 B. Prior Commission Actions Regarding RTO and ISO Responsiveness 140 C. Proposed Commission Action To Improve RTO and ISO Responsiveness 146 VII. Additional Questions 164 VIII. Comment Procedures 166 IX. Document Availability 170 I. Introduction 1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is considering potential reforms to improve the operation of organized wholesale electric markets. 1 In response to issues raised by various market participants and industry observers about improvements to enhance wholesale electric markets, the Commission held two conferences, on February 27, 2007 and May 8, 2007, to learn more about these issues. The first dealt with all wholesale power markets while the second focused on organized RTO/ISO markets. Based on the comments received at these two conferences, the Commission identified four specific and narrow issues, as described below, that are not already being fully addressed by the Commission in other proceedings and that may be appropriate to address in a generic proceeding. 1 Organized market regions are areas of the country in which a regional transmission organization

(RTO)or independent system operator

(ISO)operates day-ahead and/or real-time energy markets. 2. *These issues are:*

(1)The role of demand response in organized markets, including greater reliance on market prices to elicit demand reductions during power shortages;

(2)increasing opportunities for long-term power contracting;

(3)strengthening market monitoring; and

(4)the responsiveness of RTOs and ISOs to customers and other stakeholders. This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) identifies specific concerns in these four areas and presents the Commission's preliminary views on proposed reforms. 2 The Commission seeks comments on the proposed reforms. After receiving and considering these comments, the Commission will determine whether to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NOPR)and the scope of the proposed rule, if a NOPR is warranted. 2 Throughout this document, the term “propose” is used as a short form of stating that it is the Commission's preliminary view that the proposal that follows may be a reasonable way to achieve a regulatory objective, and that the Commission requests comments on the proposal and on alternative recommendations for achieving the objective. 3. Finally, the actions proposed here are intended to complement other Commission actions, discussed further below, intended to improve the operation of wholesale competition in regions with and without RTOs and ISOs and their organized markets. There are opportunities to improve the operation of wholesale markets in both types of regions. Many of the Commission's prior actions—such as Order No. 890 3 —apply to both types of regions, while others by their nature apply only to RTO/ISO regions, such as assuring load-serving entities

(LSEs)of long-term transmission rights in regions with locational marginal pricing and congestion hedges. The issues being explored in this proceeding are discrete and apply to regions with organized spot markets, market monitors, and an RTO or ISO. The actions considered address concerns that numerous market participants and many of our state colleagues have raised in this proceeding and elsewhere. The Commission is not seeking to fundamentally redesign organized markets or to appropriate jurisdiction from our state colleagues. Our goal is to make incremental improvements to the operation of organized markets without undoing or upsetting the significant efforts that have already been made in providing demonstrable benefits to wholesale customers. In particular, we acknowledge and commend the ISOs and RTOs and their respective transmission owners and stakeholders for their work over the past several years in fulfilling the Commission's policies supporting wholesale competition and non-discriminatory access to transmission. 3 *Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service,* Order No. 890, 72 FR 12,266 (Feb. 16, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 (2007), *reh'g pending* (Reform of the Open Access Transmission Tariff

(OATT)rules or OATT Reform). II. Background 4. National policy for many years has been, and continues to be, to foster competition in wholesale power markets. As the third major federal law enacted in the last 30 years to embrace wholesale competition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) 4 strengthened the legal framework for continuing wholesale competition as federal policy for this country. 4 Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005). 5. The Commission's core responsibility is to “guard the consumer from exploitation by non-competitive electric power companies.” 5 The Commission has always used two general approaches to meet this responsibility—regulation and competition. The first was the primary approach for most of the last century and remains the primary approach for wholesale transmission service, and the second has been the primary approach in recent years for wholesale generation service. 5 *National Association for the Advancement of Colored People* v. *FPC* , 520 F.2d 432, 438 (D.C. Cir. 1975), *aff'd* , 425 U.S. 662 (1976). 6. The Commission has never relied exclusively on competition to assure just and reasonable rates and has never withdrawn from regulation of wholesale electric markets. Rather, the Commission has shifted the balance of the two approaches over time as circumstances changed. Advances in technology, exhaustion of economies of scale in most electric generation, and new federal and state laws have changed our views of the right mix of these two approaches. Our goal has always been to find the best possible mix of regulation and competition to protect consumers from the exercise of monopoly power. 7. In each major energy bill over the last few decades, Congress has acted to open up the wholesale electric power market by facilitating entry of new generators to compete with traditional utilities. The Commission has acted quickly and strongly over the years to implement this national policy. 8. Congress has not deregulated the wholesale electric power business, however, and the Commission has not done so by regulation. To the contrary, the Commission has issued many new regulations and orders designed to foster competition nationally and to support competitive markets in specific regions. Because the United States does not have a national electric power market, our approach to implementing competition has been to recognize and foster the development of regional markets. 9. There are significant differences among the regional wholesale power markets. There are differences in industry structure, differences in the mix of ownership (such as investor-owned, cooperatively-owned, and publicly-owned utilities), differences in the mix of fuels and energy sources for electric generation, and differences in population densities and weather patterns, to name a few. Some regions pursue wholesale competition exclusively by relying on direct bilateral contracting between sellers and buyers, and others employ a mix of bilateral contracting with organized spot markets and other markets to increase opportunities for the sale or purchase of electric power. In regions with organized spot markets, the markets are administered by an RTO or ISO, which themselves have differences regarding such matters as market design, transmission responsibilities, and decision-making procedures. The Commission's approach to supporting wholesale competition is to recognize and respect these differences in market structure and other differences across the various regions. 10. Wholesale competition can serve customers well in all regions, including RTO and ISO regions with organized markets and regions without such organizations and markets. There are strengths and weaknesses to the approach taken by each, and wholesale competition faces challenges in both areas. 11. The best way to address these challenges may differ among the regions, however. For example, in all regions the cost of the fuels used for electric generation has increased in recent years, as it has throughout the world. Those regions of the United States that depend on natural gas for electric generation have felt this the most. Competitive spot markets reflect these cost changes quickly in market prices, while longer-term fixed price bilateral contracts or cost-of-service regulation may reflect cost increases or decreases more gradually in the wholesale price. Wholesale customers in all regions want better long-term contracting opportunities. All regions face the problem that retail customers are often unaware of supply shortages and continue their normal consumption even on days when supplies are tight and wholesale prices are high. Allocating the costs of a major new regional transmission facility fairly is a challenge faced by every region. 12. Regions with an RTO or ISO may be better able than other regions to address some of these issues, but they may also face more difficult challenges. For example, much of the recent dissatisfaction with organized competitive markets appears to be directly linked to rising natural gas prices. 13. National policy is to promote wholesale competition in all regions, and customers now are calling especially for actions to improve the operation of wholesale competitive markets in the organized market regions. Hence, the focus of this ANOPR is not whether wholesale competition is the correct federal policy; the focus is on further improving the operation of wholesale competitive markets in organized market regions. 6 The Commission seeks comment on proposed reforms to improve the operation of wholesale markets in these regions. 6 There are organized markets in the following RTOs and ISOs: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO), ISO New England, Inc. (ISO-NE), California Independent Service Operator Corp. (CAISO), Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP), and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). A. Brief History 14. Numerous federal and state legislative and regulatory activities have supported competition in the U.S. electric industry over the last three decades. Congress enacted the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) 7 as a response to the energy crises of the 1970s. PURPA required electric utilities to interconnect with, and offer to purchase power from, qualifying cogeneration and small power production facilities at avoided cost rates set by state regulatory authorities. It gave the Commission limited authority to order wholesale transmission on a case-by-case basis, upon application by an eligible entity. A consequence of PURPA was the emergence of a new class of power generators that were independent of traditional utilities. 7 Pub. L. No. 95-617, 92 Stat. 3117 (codified in scattered sections of 15, 16, 26, 30, 42, and 43 U.S.C.) (1978). 15. Beginning in the 1980s, the Commission allowed independent power producers to sell electric energy at wholesale at negotiated rates instead of the traditional cost-based rates. 8 Development of a competitive generation sector was impeded, however, because independent power producers were discouraged from entering the generation business by certain provisions of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA) 9 and because the new power suppliers could not readily gain access to the transmission grid to reach wholesale buyers. 8 *See* The Electric Energy Market Competition Task Force, *Report to Congress on Competition in Wholesale and Retail Markets for Electric Energy* , Docket No. AD05-17-, at 22 (April 2007). 9 15 U.S.C. 79a *et seq.* (2000). 16. Congress addressed these problems in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992). 10 EPAct 1992 eased PUHCA restrictions so that independent and affiliate generators could more easily enter the market to compete at wholesale and it expanded the Commission's authority to order a transmitting utility to provide wholesale power transmission service, upon application on a case-by-case basis, to anyone selling power at wholesale. By the mid-1990s, the Commission found that ordering wholesale transmission services case-by-case did not adequately address problems with undue discrimination in transmission access, which limited opportunities for wholesale power competition. In 1996, the Commission used its authority under section 206 of the Federal Power Act

(FPA)11 to issue Order No. 888, remedying undue discrimination in access to transmission by requiring all public utilities with transmission to provide transmission service under an OATT. 12 The Commission recently issued Order No. 890 to remedy remaining opportunities for undue discrimination in the provision of open access transmission service. 10 Pub. L. No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992). 11 16 U.S.C. 824e (2000). 12 *Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,* Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles January 1991-June 1996 ¶ 31,036 (1996), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ¶ 31,048 (1997), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,248 (1997), *order on reh'g* , Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), *aff'd in relevant part, remanded in part on other grounds sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group* , *et al.* v. *FERC* , 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), *aff'd sub nom* . *New York* v. *FERC* , 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 17. Also during the 1990s, many states began to allow retail customers to choose their power supplier. Retail competition was expected to lower retail prices, protect customers from shouldering generation investment risk, and introduce innovative retail services including demand response services. By 2000, 24 states and the District of Columbia had enacted legislation or issued regulatory orders to restructure their electric power industries. 13 13 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, *Status of State Restructuring of the Electric Power Industry,* at * http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epar1/state.html.* 18. In addition to requiring open transmission access in Order No. 888, FERC also encouraged the formation of ISOs. The Commission encouraged transmission-owning utilities to voluntarily transfer operating control of their transmission facilities to an ISO to ensure independent operation of the transmission grid. Several ISOs—some based on longstanding power pools such as PJM and ISO-NE—formed after that. Early experience with open transmission access led the Commission to issue Order No. 2000 in December 1999, 14 which encouraged transmitting utilities, including those that were not public utilities, to join an RTO. 15 More than half the United States' load is now served by RTOs or ISOs. 16 Most RTOs and ISOs have adopted some forms of organized markets, which have continued to evolve with operating experience. 17 RTOs and ISOs have improved transmission reliability and enabled greater coordination and efficiency in the dispatch of resources and provision of transmission service over regions served previously by separate entities. Further, they have supported competitive power markets by eliminating pancaked rates in the region, as well as by providing a spot market to supplement traditional means of selling and buying power. 14 *Regional Transmission Organizations,* Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089 (1999), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 2000-A, FERC Stats. & Regs ¶ 31,092 (2000), *aff'd sub nom. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington* v. *FERC,* 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 15 *See* Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ¶ 31,089 at 31,028. 16 The Commission has approved RTOs or ISOs in several regions including the Northeast (PJM, NYISO, and ISO-NE), California (CAISO), the Midwest (Midwest ISO) and the Southwest (SPP). 17 RTOs and ISOs currently operate various combinations of the following organized markets: energy markets (day-ahead and real-time balancing markets), transmission rights, installed capacity markets, and other ancillary services markets. 19. While RTOs and ISOs have produced benefits, they also have encountered many challenges. Security constrained least cost dispatch over a large region can reveal transmission constraints and higher locational prices in constrained areas. Previously, average prices for the large region masked these constraints. Higher prices in certain locations and the lack of investment to relieve chronic congestion are criticisms of RTOs and ISOs. Concerns about transmission investment are common to both the RTO and ISO regions and the other regions. 20. Competitive wholesale markets for electric energy, including RTO and ISO spot markets, have had successes and failures. Competitive markets have stimulated generation investment, with much of the new generation supplied by merchant generating companies. 18 According to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the percentage of generating capacity in the United States owned by independent power producers has grown from less than 2 percent in 1990 to more than 35 percent by 2005. 19 A result has been to shift the risk of investment from customers to shareholders. In addition, under wholesale competition, the efficiency of existing nuclear, coal, and other types of generation has improved significantly, lowering costs to consumers and reducing environmental effects, and the increased capacity factors and availability of these units has further lowered electric generating costs. 20 The RTO and ISO-organized markets opened opportunities for renewable energy sources; an increasing fraction of new generation is from non-traditional sources such as wind generators. In fact, more wind generation has been added in RTO and ISO regions than in other regions, even though there are many areas with good wind availability. 21 RTO and ISO regions with organized markets report that competitive markets promote significant investment in new transmission, improve transmission reliability, and open new opportunities for demand response. 22 18 *See* Platts Research and Consulting/RDI, *Review and Assessment of New Competitive-Market Sources of Power Generation* (February 5, 2003); Paul L. Joskow February 27, 2007 Comments, Docket No. AD07-7-000; New England Power Generators Association, Inc., *Meeting New England's Supply Needs: Regulated vs. Unregulated Generation,* at * http://www.nepga.org/contents/factsheet9041006.pdf.* 19 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, *Electric Power Annual 2005,* Table 2.1 (November 2006), at *http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p1.html.* 20 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, *Generating Availability Report* (November 2006). 21 Michael Skelly February 27, 2007 Comments, Docket No. AD07-7-000, at 1 (submitted on behalf of Horizon Wind Energy and the American Wind Energy Association) (reporting that “[w]ell-structured regional wholesale electricity markets operated independently allow far greater amounts of renewable energy and demand response resources to be integrated into the nation's electric grid. In fact, approximately 73 percent of installed wind capacity is now located in regions with such markets, while only 44 percent of wind energy potential is found in these areas. Large, regional energy markets provide for cost-effective balancing of generation and load with significant penetrations of variable, nondispatchable power sources, and they facilitate delivery of resources remote from load centers.”) 22 *See, e.g.* , ISO/RTO Council, *The Value of Independent Regional Grid Operators* (November 2005), *http://www.caiso.com/14c6/14c6c4291aa40.pdf.* 21. Despite all of the successes attributable to wholesale competition, there have been difficulties. The most prominent is that spot markets in California during 2000 and 2001 experienced sustained high wholesale prices resulting from supply shortages, market design flaws, and market abuses. In other RTOs and ISOs, prices in the day-ahead and real-time balancing markets have been volatile at times. This volatility can present issues for both buyers and sellers as buyers try to hedge the volatility and sellers try to project revenues from the organized markets. Even with the volatility, the RTO and ISO markets have provided wholesale customers and suppliers with a new and constantly available opportunity to buy or sell power and transparent price information. 22. Much of the concern about competition in wholesale power markets can be traced to the effects of higher natural gas prices on wholesale electric power prices. As the Commission's staff reports, “natural gas currently functions as the most significant price-setting fuel in U.S. electric generation.” 23 Natural gas prices have increased significantly over the last decade. According to the Energy Information Administration, the average U.S. wellhead price of natural gas increased from $2.17 in 1996 to $6.42 in 2006 (which was down from $7.33 in 2005). 24 The summer 2007 futures prices from the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) for natural gas at Henry Hub, Louisiana are up 21 percent over last summer's actual average prices traded on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). 25 As reported by Commission staff, wholesale prices for electricity are expected to be higher in the summer of 2007 in all regions of the United States, regardless of regional market structure. 26 The principal reason is higher expected prices for natural gas. As the United States has increased its reliance on natural gas for electricity generation, particularly to meet peak loads, the forward price of natural gas has had an increasing effect on the forward price of wholesale electric power, especially during electric peak periods. The effect of wholesale prices is felt in parts of the United States that have no organized markets as well as regions with organized markets. 23 Stephen Harvey, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Presentation at the May 17, 2007 Commission Meeting: 2007 Summer Energy Market Assessment (May 17, 2007) (Summer Market Assessment), at * http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20070517112506-A-3.pdf [to fix].* 24 *See Id. See also* U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, *U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Price,* at *http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3a.htm.* 25 *See* Summer Market Assessment. These NYMEX and ICE prices are not estimates but prices actually produced on those two trading systems. 26 *Id.* 23. Some perceived challenges in the organized wholesale markets may be closely related to difficulties in state retail choice programs. Retail choice programs tend to be in areas served by organized wholesale markets, and the distinction between wholesale and retail competition challenges is often blurred. It appears that some areas with retail choice depend on their RTO or ISO to provide or arrange for the provision of some functions previously carried out by vertically integrated utilities. This has created challenges for wholesale market design, particularly with regard to whether it effectively provides for resource adequacy. Because wholesale and retail markets are intertwined, any examination of retail choice typically involves a critique of the combination of the particular retail choice program and the RTO's or ISO's wholesale market design. 24. The Commission continues to believe that wholesale competition benefits customers by providing more choice, spurring innovative services and technologies, shifting risk away from customers, improving efficiency, and providing incentives for cost reductions and for the construction of new resources. As stated above, the purpose of this ANOPR is to explore reasonable proposals for improving wholesale organized markets. B. Competition Issues and Commission Actions 25. In proceedings outside this ANOPR, the Commission has addressed or is addressing many issues related to improving wholesale electric power competition in all regions, both with and without organized markets. The Commission has taken actions to improve wholesale transmission and competitive wholesale power opportunities. 26. The Commission's transmission actions have included reform of the OATT, development of long-term transmission rights policies, incentives for new transmission infrastructure, and approval of transmission cost allocation policies. OATT reform applies to transmission-owning and operating public utilities in all regions. It adds greater consistency and transparency to available transfer capability calculations, requires an open and coordinated regional transmission planning process, and reforms energy imbalance charges. Additionally, it provides for a new “conditional firm” point-to-point transmission service. Long-term transmission rights in RTOs and ISOs were strengthened in Order Nos. 681 and 681-A. These orders, as directed by EPAct 2005, provide for long-term transmission price certainty in the organized electricity markets, which supports long-term power supply arrangements. In Order No. 679, 27 the Commission acted to bolster investment in the nation's transmission infrastructure in response to section 1241 of EPAct 2005. 28 This rule allows those building transmission to apply for recovery of prudently incurred costs for construction work in progress, pre-operations, and abandoned facilities, and it provides for application for an incentive rate of return on equity for new transmission investment. To further encourage transmission investment, and provide certainty about who pays for new transmission, the Commission, in separate orders for each RTO or ISO—including two this year 29 —has approved cost allocation policies for new and existing transmission, thereby removing any barrier to new investment caused by uncertainty about transmission cost allocation. 27 *Promoting Transmission Investment through Pricing Reform,* Order No. 679, 71 FR 43,294 (July 31, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,222, *order on reh'g,* Order No. 679-A, 72 FR 1,152 (January 10, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,236 (2006), *order on reh'g,* 119 FERC ¶ 61,062 (2007). 28 Section 1241 of EPAct 2005 is to be codified at section 219 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824s. 29 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Opinion No. 494, 119 FERC ¶ 61,063 (2007), *reh'g pending* (approving PJM's cost allocation proposal for existing transmission facilities, and requiring revisions to its proposal for new transmission facilities); *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,* 118 FERC ¶ 61,209 (2007), *reh'g pending* (conditionally approving cost allocation for economic upgrades). In 2006, the Commission approved the Midwest ISO's proposed cost allocation for reliability upgrades. *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,* 114 FERC ¶ 61,106, *order on technical conference,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,241 (2006), *order on reh'g,* 118 FERC ¶ 61,208 (2007), *reh'g pending.* 27. The Commission also has undertaken numerous actions in support of competitive wholesale power opportunities. For example, the Commission established interconnection rules for large, small and wind generators. In addition, the Commission has not only granted initial approval to the organized markets of the RTO and ISO regions but has continued to work with each region to improve the design of its markets as the region and the Commission have gained experience with the different regional approaches. Further, we have approved various market power mitigation rules and provided for market monitoring in the organized markets of RTOs and ISOs. Also, in response to EPAct 2005, the Commission prepared a report that assesses electric demand response resources by region. 30 The Commission has also opened a proceeding on demand response in wholesale markets, and we held a technical conference on April 23, 2007, to examine demand resources in markets, grid operations and expansion, and best practices for the measurement and evaluation of demand response resources. 31 These Commission actions, along with other prior actions of the Commission, are intended to work together to improve the operation of competitive wholesale markets across the nation, in regions with and without organized markets. The proposals in this ANOPR complement these actions and are part of our ongoing effort to maintain and encourage competitive wholesale electric energy markets. 30 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, *Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering: Staff Report,* Docket No. AD06-2-000 (August 8, 2006) ( *FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment).* 31 *See* Supplemental Notice, *Demand Response in Wholesale Markets,* Docket No. AD07-11-000 (April 6, 2007). 28. With the passage of EPAct 2005, Congress granted the Commission additional authorities to support wholesale competition. Key provisions in EPAct 2005 include authority to impose civil penalties for market manipulation, to prevent exercise of market power through expanded power to review mergers and generation facility transfers, and to require market transparency. EPAct 2005 also included a number of provisions designed to strengthen the interstate power grid, both to assure reliability and support competitive markets, encouraging the Commission to increase transmission investment through incentives, providing for backstop federal siting of transmission facilities, encouraging the deployment of advanced technologies, and authorizing the Commission to approve and enforce mandatory reliability standards. The Commission has taken these and other new responsibilities seriously and has complied with all Congressional directives and deadlines. 29. In addition, the Commission has recognized that there are issues that need to be addressed where the Commission and state commissions share an interest, such as demand response and competitive procurement. The Commission is engaged with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) in two collaborative efforts, the NARUC-FERC Collaborative Dialogue on Demand Response and the NARUC-FERC Competitive Procurement Collaborative. C. Issues Addressed in the ANOPR 30. Competition remains national policy with respect to wholesale power markets. Competition continues to be sound policy in wholesale markets, when combined with effective regulation. The Commission has a duty to improve the operation of wholesale power markets to support competition. One way to accomplish that is by pursuing regulatory reform. To that end, the Commission initiated this proceeding, designed to identify the challenges facing competitive wholesale power markets, identify workable solutions to those challenges that will complement other Commission actions to improve the operation of competitive wholesale markets, and determine which solutions are within the Commission's authority. This proceeding also responds to concerns raised by market participants regarding needed improvements to the operation of competitive wholesale markets. 31. In order to gather more information and allow public comment, the Commission held a conference on competition issues on February 27, 2007. At this first competition conference, most speakers addressed issues affecting the RTO and ISO regions, including the level of wholesale prices, the need for long-term power contracts, the effectiveness of market monitoring, and the lack of adequate demand response. The Commission held a second competition conference on May 8, 2007, to examine in more detail several specific concerns and challenges identified in the first conference. This second conference focused on regions with RTOs and ISOs and organized markets and dealt with:

(1)Demand response and market prices during a power shortage;

(2)fostering long-term power contracting; and

(3)the responsiveness of RTOs and ISOs to customers and other stakeholders. The panel on demand response emphasized allowing customers to respond to high prices, particularly when generating capacity falls short of demand, providing adequate compensation for demand reductions, and allowing many small retail demand reductions to be aggregated for use in the wholesale power market. The panel on long-term power contracting discussed the role and availability of long-term contracts, as well as the importance of long-term transmission service and a robust transmission system. The RTO and ISO accountability panel discussed the need for RTOs and ISOs to be more responsive to their stakeholders; it considered several means of achieving this such as allowing a few stakeholder representatives to serve on hybrid boards of RTOs or ISOs. On April 5, 2007, the Commission also held a technical conference on market monitoring policies and heard from interested commenters on issues such as the development of the concept and functions of market monitoring and the MMUs' role with respect to the Commission, ISOs and RTOs, and various stakeholders. 32. Based on comments received at these three conferences, the Commission decided to consider in this ANOPR four issues in organized market regions that are not already being fully addressed by the Commission in other proceedings. These areas are:

(1)The role of demand response in organized markets and greater use of market prices to elicit demand reductions during a power shortage;

(2)increasing opportunities for long-term power contracting;

(3)strengthening market monitoring; and

(4)enhancing the responsiveness of RTOs and ISOs to customers and other stakeholders. 33. At this time, the Commission is not addressing in this ANOPR potential reforms outside the organized market regions. As discussed in our first technical conference, the primary concerns of wholesale customers and competitors in other regions are nondiscriminatory access to transmission and nondiscriminatory rules for power procurement. These two areas, although critically important, are being addressed by the Commission in other proceedings. In Order No. 890, the Commission reformed the OATT to ensure that it continues to provide nondiscriminatory access to transmission service. Much work remains to be done, however, and the Commission is focusing on the compliance phase of OATT reform to ensure that it is implemented properly, particularly in the area of regional transmission planning and the calculation of available transfer capability. With regard to power procurement, the Commission believes that competitive procurement can enhance the ability of LSEs to acquire reliable wholesale power supplies at reasonable prices. The Commission recognizes, however, that wholesale power procurement raises issues that are important to both the Commission and state commissions. The Commission is therefore pursuing a cooperative dialogue with NARUC to develop guidelines for best practices for power procurement. Since these two main areas of concern are being pursued in other proceedings, the Commission will not address reforms outside the RTO/ISO regions in this proceeding. Similarly, issues related to demand response are important to both this Commission and state commissions. Concerns with participation of demand response in organized and bilateral markets were voiced in our technical conferences. The Commission is pursuing a collaborative dialogue with state commissions on best practices and coordination on demand response issues, and lessons learned there may be applicable to bilateral markets. III. Demand Response and Pricing During Power Shortages in Organized Markets 34. A well-functioning competitive wholesale electric market should reflect current supply and demand conditions. The Commission has expressed the view on numerous occasions that the wholesale electric power market works best when demand can respond to the wholesale price. 32 The Commission's policy is to facilitate the participation of demand response in the organized power markets, in part because demand response helps to hold down wholesale power prices, increases awareness of energy usage, provides for more efficient operation of markets, mitigates market power, and enhances reliability. This policy reflects the Commission's view that the value of electric power to customers is not always the same. It changes over time and varies from place to place. The value can be very different for two customers at the same time and place, one of whom may prefer to reduce consumption if the price is high and another who may be willing to pay a high price to avoid curtailment in an emergency. 32 *New England Power Pool and ISO New England, Inc.,* 101 FERC ¶ 61,344, at P 44-49 (2002), *order on reh'g,* 103 FERC ¶ 61,304, *order on reh'g,* 105 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2003); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 95 FERC ¶ 61,306 (2001); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 99 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2002); *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.,* 116 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2006). 35. While the Commission and the various RTOs and ISOs have done much to facilitate demand response in organized power markets, more can be done. In response to a requirement of EPAct 2005 to assess demand response capability nationally, the August 2006 *FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment* estimated the total installed demand response capability from existing programs nationally to be 37,500 megawatts (MW), or about five percent of current peak demand. Several reports indicate that the potential demand response capability available in the United States may be much greater than this. 33 The Commission's preliminary view is that RTO and ISO wholesale market design changes or additions, particularly for energy and ancillary services markets, may be needed to help tap that potential. Our goal is for RTOs and ISOs to develop rules to ensure the treatment of supply and demand resources on a comparable basis to the extent each is technically capable of providing the service. Our aim is not to afford demand resources preferential treatment over supply resources. For example, even under the mechanisms contemplated by this ANOPR, demand resources must satisfy all requirements for service provision comparable to those applied to supply resources, including but not limited to procedures for measurement and verification of performance, as well as penalties. Further, our aim is not to require demand resources to participate in these or any other resource programs. Rather, we are merely ensuring that the wholesale markets are designed to accommodate demand resources in a manner comparable to supply resources, unless not permitted by state law. Therefore, the mechanisms should not intrude on state jurisdiction. The Commission's proposals do not require action by states but can benefit from such action. 33 *See, e.g.* , Ahmad Faruqui *et al.* , The Brattle Group, *The Power of Five Percent: How Dynamic Pricing Can Save $35 Billion in Electricity Costs* (May 16, 2007), *http://www.brattle.com/_documents/Publications/ArticleReport2441.pdf.* A. Importance of Demand Response to Competition in RTO/ISO Areas 36. The value of demand response to properly functioning RTO and ISO markets has been described in detail by many experts, such as Nobel Prize-winning economist Vernon Smith and Lynne Kiesling, in their paper titled “A Market-Based Model for ISO-Sponsored Demand Response Programs.” 34 Demand response assists competitive wholesale markets in at least three ways. 34 Vernon Smith and Lynne Kiesling, *Market-Based Model for ISO-Sponsored Demand Response Programs,* (September 2005), *http://www.defgllc.com/Downloads/051018_DEFG_DRwp02.pdf .* 37. First, demand response can help reduce wholesale prices and wholesale price volatility. The reduction is valued especially during peak periods, but demand response can also lower price and volatility during off-peak periods. Demand response can lower wholesale prices directly and indirectly. The direct effect occurs when a demand reduction is bid directly into the wholesale market: lower demand means a lower wholesale price. Demand response at retail, if not bid directly into the wholesale market by a large retail customer, affects the wholesale market indirectly because it reduces the need for power by the retail customers' LSE and in turn reduces that LSE's need to purchase power from the wholesale market. For example, where an LSE offers retail customers some form of time-of-use rates, the retail customers' response to rates during a higher-priced period reduces the LSE's wholesale demand and helps lower wholesale prices. This lower wholesale price may result in lower retail prices. 38. Second, demand response tends to flatten an area's load profile. With a flatter load profile, the distribution of generation types tends to shift toward lower-cost base load generation and away from higher-cost peaking generation, and this tends to lower the overall average cost to produce energy. 39. Third, demand response can help reduce the potential for market manipulation by reducing generator market power. As more demand response is available during peak periods, power suppliers need to account more for the price responsiveness of load when they consider higher-price bids. The more demand response is able to reduce the peak price, the more downward pressure it places on generator bidding strategies by increasing the risk to a supplier that it will not be dispatched if it bids too high. 40. RTOs such as PJM, NYISO, and ISO-NE have quantified the cost-effectiveness of demand response in their wholesale markets. They assessed both the reduction in market prices due to demand reductions and the value of demand response to system reliability. These assessments conclude that the demand response programs they operate produce net benefits associated with lower wholesale prices. For example, ISO-NE found that the benefits of its various economic and emergency demand response programs in 2005 more than compensate for its costs, largely payments to demand response participants and its own extra operating costs. 35 PJM and NYISO found similar positive results in evaluations of their programs. 36 35 ISO-NE, *An Evaluation of the Performance of the Demand Response Programs Implemented by ISO-NE in 2005,* Docket No. ER02-2330-040 (Dec. 30, 2005). 36 *NYISO, NYISO 2006 Demand Response Programs,* Docket No. ER01-3001-016 (Feb. 16, 2007); PJM, *Assessment of PJM Load Response Programs,* Docket No. ER02-1326-006 (Aug. 29, 2006). B. Prior Commission Actions To Address Demand Response 41. The Commission has issued numerous orders over the last several years on various aspects of electric demand response in organized markets. A goal of most of these orders was to remove unnecessary obstacles to demand response participating in the wholesale power markets of RTOs and ISOs. 37 37 *See, e.g., New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,* 92 FERC ¶ 61,073, *order on clarification,* 92 FERC ¶ 61,181 (2000), *order on reh'g,* 97 FERC ¶ 61,154 (2001); *New England Power Pool and ISO New England, Inc.,* 100 FERC ¶ 61,287, *order on reh'g,* 101 FERC ¶ 61,344 (2002), *order on reh'g,* 103 FERC ¶ 61,304, order on reh'g, 105 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2003); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 95 FERC ¶ 61,306 (2001); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 99 FERC ¶ 61,139 (2002); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 99 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2002). 42. These orders approved various types of demand response programs, including programs to allow demand response to be used as a capacity resource and as a resource during system emergencies, 38 programs to allow wholesale buyers and qualifying large retail buyers to bid a demand reduction directly into the day-ahead and real-time energy markets and certain ancillary service markets, particularly as a provider of operating reserves, as well as programs to accept bids from aggregators of retail customers (ARCs). 39 The Commission also has approved special demand response applications such as use of demand response for synchronized reserves and regulation service. 40 The theme underlying the Commission's approval of these programs has been to allow demand resources to participate in these markets on a basis that is comparable to other resources. 38 *See, e.g.* , *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,331 (2006); *Devon Power L.L.C.,* 115 FERC ¶ 61,340 (2006). These orders allow demand resources to provide capacity resources. 39 We will use the phrase “aggregation of retail customers” to refer to RTOs and ISOs accepting bids from parties that aggregate demand response bids (which are mostly from retail loads), or ARCs. *See, e.g., New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,* 95 FERC ¶ 61,223 (2001); *New England Power Pool and ISO New England, Inc.,* 100 FERC ¶ 61,287, *order on reh'g,* 101 FERC ¶ 61,344 (2002), *order on reh'g,* 103 FERC ¶ 61,304, *order on reh'g,* 105 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2003); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 99 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2002). 40 *See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 114 FERC ¶ 61,201 (2006). 43. An important type of demand response program is one that allows demand response bids in the day-ahead and real-time energy markets by a group of retail customers. There is usually a minimum size bid allowed in an RTO or ISO market for any participating retail customer. The Commission has approved programs that allow smaller retail customers to combine their individual demand reductions into a larger block for bidding into the organized markets, if permitted by state law, without having to go through their LSE. 41 A third party ARC, often called a curtailment service provider, typically provides this aggregation service. The aggregate demand reduction may be bid directly into the energy and ancillary services markets. 41 *See, e.g., New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,* 95 FERC ¶ 61,223 (2001); *New England Power Pool and ISO New England, Inc.,* 100 FERC ¶ 61,287, *order on reh'g,* 101 FERC ¶ 61,344 (2002), *order on reh'g,* 103 FERC ¶ 61,304, *order on reh'g,* 105 FERC ¶ 61,211 (2003); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 99 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2002). 44. In addition, the Commission has explicitly addressed demand response in its recent final rules on OATT Reform (Order No. 890) and reliability standards (Order No. 693). 42 Order No. 890 requires any public utility with an OATT to allow qualified demand resources to participate in its regional transmission planning process on a comparable basis and to allow qualified demand response to provide certain ancillary services. Specifically, we agreed with a request by Alcoa that load resources ( *i.e.* , demand response) should be permitted to self-supply and sell ancillary services to third parties. 43 In doing so, we also made clear that a Transmission Provider may use non-generation resources in meeting its OATT obligation to provide ancillary services, so long as those resources are capable of providing the service. 44 Order No. 890 did not require Transmission Providers to purchase ancillary services from non-generation resources or generation resources. Our proposal here would require RTO/ISO ancillary service markets to allow bidding by non-generation resources if they are capable of providing such services. Order No. 693 requires the Electricity Reliability Organization to revise its reliability standards so that all technically feasible resource options, including demand response and generating resources, may be employed in the management of grid operations and emergencies. 45 42 *See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System,* Order No. 693, 72 FR 16,416 (April 4, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242 (2007). 43 Order No. 890 at P 887-88. 44 *E.g.,* Order 890, OATT Schedule 5 (Operating Reserve—Spinning Reserve Service). 45 Order No. 693 directed the Electricity Reliability Organization to develop new versions of its BAL-002, BAL-005, and EOP-002 reliability standards to allow demand side resources to provide contingency reserves. Order No. 693 at ¶ 330-35, 404-06, 573. 45. The Commission has also encouraged demand response outside of its orders. The Commission has conducted several technical conferences on demand response over the last several years, most recently on April 23, 2007. 46 The NARUC-FERC Collaborative Dialogue on Demand Response began in November 2006 to explore state/federal coordination of efforts to promote and integrate demand response into retail and wholesale markets and planning. Also, as mentioned, in August 2006 the Commission published the staff report on demand response and advanced metering as directed by EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3). 47 46 For example, the Commission conducted a technical conference on January 25, 2006 to support the *FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment* in Docket No. AD06-2-000. The April 23, 2007 conference was convened in Docket No. AD07-11-000. 47 *See FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment.* 46. In this ANOPR, the Commission's focus is on exploring market rules that allow both wholesale and qualifying retail customers to bid demand response into the day-ahead, real-time energy, and ancillary services markets. C. Remaining Problems With Demand Response in Organized Markets 47. While progress has been made to increase demand-responsiveness and price-responsiveness in organized markets, more needs to be done. 48. An effective way for demand to respond to price is at the retail level, through some form of time-based retail rates (time-based retail rates include rates that vary by hour, such as real-time pricing, or by blocks of time, such as time-of-use rates or critical peak pricing). Demand response is more effective when retail rates are tied to current wholesale market-clearing prices. Effective demand response can be achieved by linking the wholesale and retail markets. While the Commission can remove some obstacles to demand participation in organized markets, more effective demand response also requires the action of state commissions. 49. As discussed in the *FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment,* some forms of demand response are well-suited to provide the ancillary services of spinning reserves, supplemental reserves, energy imbalance, and regulation and frequency response. 48 Because demand is always connected and demand reduction, in principle, can always be available, some forms of demand resources may be able to provide a rapid, near real-time response. 49 Nevertheless, except for a few markets, demand response is not able to participate in these ancillary services markets. ISO-NE, NYISO, and CAISO allow demand resources to provide supplemental (non-spinning) reserves. As of mid-2007, only PJM allows demand resources to provide synchronized reserves (PJM's term for spinning reserves) and regulation service (although no resource has yet qualified to provide this service in PJM). 48 For an explanation of each of these ancillary services, see the *pro forma* OATT, Schedules 3 through 6, contained in Order No. 890. 49 For example, electric-arc steel furnaces have the capability to adjust their consumption rapidly, and air conditioner cycling programs can respond within several minutes of execution. 50. Several factors may account for the lack of participation of demand resources in some ancillary services markets. System operators responsible for maintaining reliable operation have little or no experience with the responsiveness of demand resources and may lack confidence in them. To qualify to provide ancillary services, a resource must satisfy certain requirements such as having a minimum size 50 and real-time telemetry. These requirements can limit which customers may participate and may also obligate customers to invest in real-time metering and monitoring equipment at their sites. 50 ISO-NE places a minimum size of 5 MW for participation. *See* ISO-NE, *ISO New England Manual for Market Rule 1 Accounting* (May 31, 2007), at section 12.3.5.3, *http://www.iso-ne.com/rules_proceds/isone_mnls/m_28_market_rule_1_accounting_(revision_27)_05_31_07.doc.* 51. In addition, market rules for bidding and participating in ancillary services markets were developed with generation in mind and may not make sense for demand response resources. Distinguishing among rules that must apply to all resources to maintain reliability and those that can be amended to accommodate inflexible or special case resources is an important market design issue. For example, many demand resources can respond quickly and at a low cost if called on for a short duration, which may make them well suited for providing operating reserves. A large industrial customer, such as a steel mill, provides an operating reserve when it reduces its load quickly within seconds or minutes, in response to direction from a system operator. However, if market rules require that bids be made into a joint energy-plus-reserves market, those offering operating reserves must also be available to provide energy or other ancillary services. The result is that the operating reserve provider that risks being called on frequently or for a prolonged period in the energy market may simply decide not to participate in the energy market, and consequently not provide demand reduction as operating reserves. Because energy use is necessary to a customer's business, frequent or lengthy unplanned interruptions could disrupt that business. As a result, market rules that do not allow a demand response provider to limit the frequency and duration of interruption creates a disincentive for a demand resource to bid into the operating reserves market. 51 51 *See FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment* at 123. 52. Demand response providers need market rules that allow bids to be flexible and that reflect bidders' willingness to offer various levels of service depending on the market prices. In fact, the design of today's organized markets does allow some flexible and some price-sensitive bidding into day-ahead and real-time energy markets. Nevertheless, the Commission is concerned that some market features may inhibit LSEs and other demand response providers from bidding load reductions into energy markets. For example, in most organized markets, if an LSE's actual purchase from the real-time market differs from the purchase it scheduled in the day-ahead market, it may be assessed an uplift charge (separate from any imbalance charge) 52 While it is important to have mechanisms in place that encourage LSEs to accurately forecast and schedule their loads in the day-ahead market, these types of charges may unnecessarily discourage an LSE from urging retail customers to conserve energy during a system emergency. 52 During reserve shortages on August 1 in the Midwest ISO region, LSEs contributed close to 3,000 MW of demand reductions but were assessed revenue sufficiency guarantee charges—charges that ensure that any generator scheduled or dispatched by the Midwest ISO after the close of the day-ahead energy market will receive no less than its offer prices for start-up, no-load and incremental energy. Wisconsin Public Service Commission Chairperson Daniel Ebert reported on these charges at the April 23, 2007 technical conference on demand response. *See* Technical Conference on Demand Response in Wholesale Markets on April 23, 2007, Tr. 83-84 (Daniel Ebert, Wisconsin Public Service Commission) (Docket No. AD07-11-000). 53. Organized energy market rules may restrict the type of bid that a LSE or ARC may submit. In some cases, this may be intended to treat a demand response bid the same as a generation bid, but, in other cases there may be a restriction on a demand response bid that does not apply to a generation bid. Bidding features available to generation, such as a guaranteed minimum price and a minimum duration of service, are often not available to demand reductions. Some generators need such features if, for example, they are not able to start and stop frequently or if cycling output up and down produces excessive stress on their equipment. Providers of demand reductions may have their own limitations on cycling but not be allowed to express these in their bids. For example, if a factory reduces consumption in response to a dispatch signal, it may be required to stop production for an entire work shift or until equipment can be restarted. Frequent directions to reduce load for short durations could be disruptive to production. Allowing demand response providers to make bids with provisions for minimum duration and price limits would make participation by such customers in the energy market more attractive. 54. As mentioned above, the Commission has approved some demand response programs that allow retail customers, if it is consistent with state law, to bid their combined demand reductions through an ARC into wholesale day-ahead and real-time markets. PJM, ISO-NE and NYISO have allowed such ARCs to become market participants, and these RTOs accept bids from ARCs. 53 If these load reduction bids are accepted, the RTO or ISO directs the customers to reduce their consumption as bid and the customers are paid the market-clearing price. The aggregation of retail customers programs in PJM and ISO-NE allow program participants to reduce their demand before the real-time market runs without being subject to uplift charges for unscheduled changes from the day-ahead schedule. 53 These aggregation of retail customers programs go by various names. PJM operates the Economic Load Response Program that allows direct bidding in day-ahead and real-time markets. NYISO operates the Day-Ahead Demand Response Program. ISO-NE operates the Day-Ahead Load Response Program and the Real-Time Price Response Program. 55. Another factor that may limit participation by LSEs and retail customers in demand response programs is the use of bid caps and price caps in the market design. Bid caps and price caps in RTO and ISO markets are designed to limit the opportunity to exercise market power in these markets, but they also may prevent the markets from expressing prices that are legitimately high due to a shortage. These caps may not permit buyers in RTO and ISO wholesale energy markets to see prices high enough to signal that there is a power shortage and reliability is at risk. Moreover, when power is in short supply and price is high, retail prices remain fixed, and retail customers do not adjust their demand to react to wholesale price signals because these price signals are not seen. Consequently, both generation and demand response can be in short supply at once, and the market-clearing price may not reflect the actual cost of providing more power or the value to customers of not being interrupted. Further, as discussed in the long-term contracting section below, capping the exposure of LSEs to higher prices may reduce their incentive to explore various hedging activities, such as participating in interruptible demand response programs, entering into long-term contracts or similar power supply procurement options, and building new generating units. 56. Certain demand response programs may themselves act to dampen prices during a power shortage. Emergency demand response programs are those intended to ensure reliability, which are called on by RTOs and ISOs only during a system emergency. They may be paid a fixed price such as $500 per MWh when called on. Typically, these emergency resources are not paid the market-clearing price. As a result, the market-clearing price may decrease because demand is reduced when an emergency demand response resource is used, even though it is the highest-valued resource used at the time. The reduced price signals that buyers should consume more and suppliers produce less, which is contrary to the signal that should be sent in an emergency. Only NYISO has integrated its emergency demand response programs into the market-clearing process, 54 and Midwest ISO is discussing a similar integration based on its 2006 experience. 54 The Commission approved this change in 2003. *New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,* 102 FERC ¶ 61,313 (2003). D. Proposed Commission Actions To Improve Demand Response and Market Pricing During a Power Shortage 57. The Commission's preliminary view is that the following proposals, if adopted, would address market rules to ensure that demand response can participate directly and would be treated on a comparable basis to supply resources in the organized electric energy and ancillary services markets. This would benefit customers by allowing market prices to reflect the need for demand response (or more generation) during a power shortage. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. In addition, the Commission does not intend the following proposals to be the only mechanisms open to consideration for ensuring that demand resources be treated comparably to supply resources. Commenters may propose other mechanisms for the organized markets to adopt that would ensure that demand resources and supply resources are treated on a comparable basis in the energy and ancillary services markets. 58. The Commission is considering four proposals to modify the design of wholesale RTO and ISO markets to ensure that demand resources may participate directly in the energy and ancillary services markets on a comparable basis to supply resources. As a complement to these potential reforms, the Commission is also considering revisions to existing mitigation rules to enable the wholesale market prices to help balance supply and demand when power supplies are tight so as to better ensure power system reliability. 59. First, the Commission is considering a proposal to obligate each RTO or ISO to purchase demand resources in its markets for certain ancillary services, similar to any other resources, if the resources meet the necessary technical requirements and the resources submit a bid under the generally-applicable bidding rules at or below the market-clearing price, unless the seller is not permitted to do so by state retail laws or regulations. The Commission proposes modifications to RTO and ISO tariffs that would apply this requirement for energy imbalance, spinning reserves, and supplemental reserves, as defined in the *pro forma* OATT, or their functional equivalents in an RTO or ISO tariff. 55 To be eligible to supply these ancillary services, demand resources must be capable of reducing demand within seconds or minutes. Demand resources must meet the RTO's or ISO's reasonable size, telemetry, metering, and bidding requirements. For example, the Commission approved a one-megawatt minimum bid by demand resources to provide certain operating reserves in PJM. The RTO or ISO may propose reasonable standards for metering and telemetry needed by system operators to call on these reserves and measure their compliance. Bidding rules for demand resources should not differ from the rules for generation resources unless the reason for the difference is adequately explained and justified. An RTO or ISO may propose other requirements for demand resources to provide these ancillary services that are necessary for reliability and effectiveness. 55 Order No. 890 also allows qualified demand resources to provide the other ancillary services of reactive supply and voltage control, regulation and frequency response and generator imbalance. 60. The Commission also proposes to modify RTO and ISO tariffs to provide that demand resources must be allowed to provide spinning and supplemental reserves without also being required to sell into the energy market. This change to market rules is intended to address the disincentive for demand response to be an operating reserve. Without this modification, customers may hesitate to offer demand reductions as operating reserves due to concerns about disruptions to their businesses. The Commission has approved market rules adopted by the California ISO and PJM that reduce this disincentive. 56 56 *See, e.g., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 114 FERC ¶ 61,201

(2006)(approving the use of demand resources as operating reserves in PJM). PJM allows demand resources to submit separate bids in its various energy and operating reserve markets. 61. The Commission requests comment on the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposal to require RTOs and ISOs to allow demand resources to provide these ancillary services. It also requests comment on whether to allow each RTO and ISO to propose its own minimum requirements (for example, as to minimum size bids, measurement and telemetry) or to specify appropriate minimum requirements in a Commission rule. In particular, the Commission requests comment on what size a minimum bid should be. Any proposal must comply with the ERO mandatory reliability standards. 57 57 In particular, any proposal must comply with BAL-002 (Disturbance Control Performance) and EOP-002 (Capacity and Energy Emergencies). 62. Second, the Commission is considering a proposal to modify RTO and ISO tariffs to eliminate, during a system emergency, a charge to a buyer in the energy market for taking less electric energy in the real-time market than purchased in the day-ahead market. This proposal is intended to eliminate a disincentive for demand response in the real-time market. We refer to the charge that we propose to eliminate during an emergency as a “deviation charge,” which covers certain uplift costs, as explained below. 63. Before setting out the specific proposal to eliminate this deviation charge, it is necessary to summarize first how the day-ahead and real-time markets relate. A buyer that makes a purchase in the day-ahead market has a commitment to pay for the amount of energy it purchases at the day-ahead market price. If that buyer consumes more energy in real-time than it bought the day before, it pays the day-ahead market price for the amount purchased in the day-ahead market and in addition pays the real-time market price for the extra energy consumed. The real-time price may be higher or lower than the day-ahead price. If the buyer takes less energy in the real-time market than it purchased in the day-ahead market, in effect it sells the reduction back to the market at the real-time market price. The buyer profits if it sells the energy reduction back when the real-time price is higher than the day-ahead price, and suffers a loss when the real-time price is lower. 58 Nothing in the proposal here would change this effect. If many buyers were to systematically purchase more energy in the day-ahead market than they expect to take in real time, the reduced real-time demand is likely to result in a lower real-time price. The potential loss to the buyers should effectively discourage purchasing more energy than needed in the day-ahead market. 58 This true-up process substitutes for an energy imbalance charge in most RTO and ISO spot markets. 64. Aside from the buyer's market profit or loss, some RTOs and ISOs assess buyers a charge when real-time consumption deviates from day-ahead purchases. This charge recovers at least some types of “uplift” costs, which are the portion of the generators' costs (such as start-up costs) that exceed their energy market revenues. These uplift costs may include the cost of the extra operating reserves needed when the total real-time demand of all buyers exceeds the total scheduled day-ahead demand. The extra reserves are not needed, however, when real-time demand is less than the day-ahead demand. Nevertheless, the deviation charge may apply to any deviation from the day-ahead schedule. 59 59 Although covering operating reserve costs, the deviation charge may also cover other costs not affected by the direction of the deviation. 65. Notwithstanding that these charges are typically meant to serve as an incentive for accurate scheduling, they tend to discourage demand response. When supplies are tight and the real-time price is high, a buyer that reduced load but nevertheless has to pay a deviation charge may be penalized for taking the appropriate action. This unintended disincentive may lead a buyer to maintain a high load or discourage an LSE from calling on the demand response capabilities of its retail customers. This negative incentive is especially troublesome during a system emergency when load reduction is needed most. 66. The Commission requests comment on a proposal to require RTOs and ISOs to eliminate this deviation charge for a load reduction during a system emergency. The Commission has already approved a PJM proposal to apply no deviation charge for a load reduction from day-ahead to real-time during a system emergency. 60 60 During an emergency situation a deviation is only assessed if “that deviation increases [the load's] spot market purchases * * *” PJM, *Manual 28: Operating Agreement Accounting,* at 65 (March 7, 2007), *http://www.pjm.com/contributions/pjm-manuals/pdf/m28.pdf.* 67. The Commission also requests comment on whether an RTO or ISO should assess a deviation charge for a day-ahead to real-time load reduction when there is no system emergency. Eliminating the charge would encourage demand response, but might have unintended consequences. The Commission understands that these deviation charges cover real costs. Would eliminating the deviation charge for taking less energy in real-time result in an unfair reallocation of these costs to others? Would the incentive described above—for a buyer to avoid purchasing more than it needs in the day-ahead market—adequately discourage poor scheduling practices, or is it important to retain the deviation charge for this reason? Would eliminating the deviation charge for a real-time load reduction introduce any new opportunity for gaming behavior? 68. As background for the third proposal, demand resources currently participate in every organized real-time market, with the exception of SPP, which is considering such a proposal. Demand resources also currently participate in the organized day-ahead markets of NYISO, ISO-NE, and PJM, while CAISO and the Midwest ISO are considering such a proposal. In addition to participation by individual customers, ARCs aggregate demand reductions by retail customers and bid these aggregated reductions into the energy markets. The *FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment* and comments during our technical conferences indicate that more needs to be done to facilitate direct participation in the energy markets by ARCs who bid into the wholesale markets aggregated demand reductions on behalf of retail customers and other customers. The potential contribution from ARCs has increased with technological developments that make demand response more automated. 69. The Commission is considering a proposal to require RTOs and ISOs to amend their market rules as necessary to permit an ARC to bid a demand reduction on behalf of retail customers directly into the RTO's or ISO's organized markets. This proposal is intended to remove a barrier to demand response in some RTO and ISO energy markets 61 by allowing an ARC to act as an intermediary for many small retail loads that cannot individually participate in the organized market because they lack standing as an LSE or because they individually cannot meet a requirement that a demand response bid be of minimum size. 61 Aggregation of retail customers is used now in the energy markets of PJM, ISO-NE, and NYISO and in PJM's Synchronized Reserve and Regulation Service market in PJM. PJM's aggregation of retail customers is integrated into its market rules for PJM's Interchange Energy Market. Aggregation of retail customers in ISO-NE and NYISO are separate programs that are not yet part of the market rules. 70. Under this proposal, the market rules may not exclude a demand response bid from a third-party ARC that is not a LSE unless state retail electric laws or regulations do not permit this. This proposal would apply to each of the RTO's or ISO's organized markets into which an LSE may submit a demand response bid. The market rules for ARCs may not differ from the rules for LSEs, except as needed to comply with state retail service laws and regulation, unless the RTO or ISO satisfactorily explains the reason for any such difference in its compliance filing. RTOs and ISOs may, however, set rules for ARC participation that are the same as or equivalent to its rules for LSEs. Such rules may address such subjects as bidding requirements; technical requirements for communicating demand response bids and measuring demand response performance; a minimum organized market price above which the ARC may offer to reduce load and below which it may not; a minimum or maximum number of contiguous hours for which the load reduction must be committed; and how to account for start-up costs associated with reducing load, creditworthiness, and settlement procedures. 71. Under this proposal, the Commission also would direct the RTOs and ISOs to coordinate to identify common issues, best practices solutions, and market rules that are consistent between regions, particularly in the areas of market procedures, bidding protocols, communication protocols, and measurement and verification. The Commission would direct the RTOs and ISOs to report, within 90 days of the effective date of any Final Rule in this proceeding, on how they intend to explore best practices, common issues, and market rules for the direct participation of demand resources in their markets. 62 Although we would direct RTOs and ISOs to consider best practices, the Commission does not intend that every region would have to adopt the same practices, rules, or procedures. 62 The Commission would also encourage the RTOs and ISOs to work within the ISO/RTO Council to consider best practices that may be applicable to the members' regions. The Commission also encourages continued participation in the North American Energy Standards Board's (NAESB) measurement and verification initiative. 72. The Commission requests comments on the proposal to require RTOs and ISOs to amend their market rules to permit demand response of aggregated retail customers. Are there other requirements the Commission should consider to improve the efficiency of aggregation of retail customers? The Commission also requests comments on the conditions under which a RTO or ISO aggregation of retail customers program would no longer be needed. 73. The Commission also requests comment on whether aggregation of retail customers allows inappropriate compensation when a retail customer is paid for wholesale demand reduction and also saves in its retail bill from the same demand reduction. The Edison Electric Institute

(EEI)has argued that the payments to customers represent subsidies that are not justified or a form of double payment. 63 For example, because a customer's bill decreases for every megawatt-hour

(MWh)not consumed, if that customer is also paid an amount by the RTO or ISO for the same MWh not consumed, EEI and others allege that the customer has been compensated twice. They contend that use of time-based rates is the correct way to achieve price-responsive demand and that any additional payment to retail customers by RTOs and ISOs is inappropriate and should be considered a temporary measure at best. Others disagree with this criticism, arguing that the price reduction does not fully reflect the social benefits produced by the demand reduction. 64 Further, critics of aggregation of retail customers programs charge that the incentives for aggregation of retail customers programs in energy markets are inconsistent across RTOs and ISOs and the programs are susceptible to gaming behavior. 65 63 *See* Technical Conference on Demand Response and Advanced Metering on January 25, 2006, Tr. 26 (Richard Tempchin, EEI) (Docket No. AD06-2-000), *http://elibrary.ferc.gov:0/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=4378387.* 64 R.N. Boisvert and B.F. Neenan, Neenan Associates, *Social Welfare Implications of Demand Response Programs in Competitive Electricity Markets* (August 2003), *http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMP/reports/LBNL-52530.pdf.* 65 The potential for gaming occurs if an aggregator submits a demand reduction bid on behalf of customers that will have reduced consumption anyway for another reason such as maintenance, vacation, or holiday. The Commission approved NYISO's bid floor of $75/MWh in its Day Ahead Demand Response Program to eliminate or reduce the incentive for this behavior. *New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,* 109 FERC ¶ 61,101 (2004). 74. The Commission requests comments on how to appropriately compensate a customer for demand response. We seek comment on whether there is any inappropriate double compensation. We also solicit comments on whether providing an additional payment is appropriate to compensate for the value of the demand response. For example, PJM pays the market-clearing price less the generation and transmission component of each retail customer's retail rate (this price reduction is sometimes called the generation offset). 66 Would a PJM-type generation offset reduce the amount of the alleged double compensation? 67 Would a generation offset encourage demand response more so during a period of high price, when it is needed most? 66 For example, if the market-clearing price is $100 per MWh and the generation component of a customer's retail rate is $75 per MWh, the payment for the load curtailment would be $25 per MWh ($100-$75). In PJM's Economic Load Response Program, this netting is applied when the market-clearing price is below $75/MWh. *See* section 3.3A.4(d) of the PJM Operating Agreement. 67 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 99 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2002). 75. Fourth, the Commission is considering whether to modify RTO and ISO market power mitigation rules and other market rules when demand is nearing the amount of available supply. When supplies are short relative to demand and reliability is threatened, market rules that limit the market price may have the unintended effect of making demand response less attractive to its providers. The Commission seeks comment on four potential ways to modify mitigation rules to allow the market price to better reflect the value of lost load in an emergency situation. 76. One way to address this issue to require that RTOs and ISOs increase the energy bid caps and price caps above the current levels only during an emergency. When the market price is constrained, it is not possible to distinguish customers who place a high value on uninterrupted electric service from other customers who would reduce demand rather than pay a price that reflects that high value. An emergency situation typically occurs when a system faces a shortage of operating reserves—a reliability standard violation. Demand for energy in the real-time market then competes with the need for spare generation for operating reserves to maintain grid reliability. To maintain operating reserves, electric energy service must be reduced immediately, either by prorating the load reduction across all customers or by using the market price to allocate the limited energy available to those who value it most. In defined periods of tight supply, PJM's market rules remove sellers' bid caps, but keep the market-wide $1,000 per MWh offer cap. If the market-wide cap was also raised, the real-time market could clear at a price above the current cap, customers could decide whether to purchase energy at this higher price, and those who place a higher value on energy could continue to buy it while those who do not value it as highly could reduce their demand. All bid caps could be raised to a high level, for example, when ten-minute operating reserves are about to drop below required levels. Raising caps in an emergency would allow each customer to decide the value of its own lost load. To use this method, an RTO and ISO would have to establish market rules to specify the emergency conditions for raising the caps and the higher bid levels allowed. RTO and ISO markets would have to establish procedures for vigorous oversight and monitoring for the exercise of market power during a system shortage. 77. The Commission requests comment on this proposal to raise energy bid caps and market-wide caps in an emergency, and on what operating conditions should constitute an emergency shortage. 78. A second way to allow the market price to reduce demand during an emergency is to raise bid caps above the current level only for demand bids 68 —the offers by buyers to purchase a certain amount of energy at a given price—in the day-ahead and real-time markets, while keeping generation bid caps in place. That is, a buyer would be allowed to inform the RTO or ISO about how much energy it would purchase at various prices above the current bid caps. Under this proposal, such high demand bids would not only be allowed but also would be allowed to set the market price if they clear the market. 69 The high market price under this approach would create an incentive for all buyers to lower their demands during an emergency. To the extent the buyers are not also sellers, this approach raises fewer concerns about market power than the first approach, which raises bid caps for all market participants. The Commission requests comment on whether this method would be more effective, less subject to the exercise of market power, or otherwise easier to implement than raising all bid and price caps. 68 A demand bid is different from a demand reduction bid. The first is an offer by a potential purchaser to buy a certain amount of energy at a given market price, and the second is an offer by a purchaser to reduce his normal purchase by a given amount in return for compensation. 69 For example, a demand bid of $1,500 could set the market price under the following conditions. If there is not enough generation capacity to meet all demand after the RTO or ISO reserves enough generating capacity to meet ancillary service requirements and if there is just enough generating capacity to meet the combination of:

(1)All ancillary service requirements,

(2)all price-insensitive demand ( *i.e.* , buyers who are willing to purchase energy at any price), and

(3)all demand with price bids above $1,500 per MWh, the market would clear at a price of $1,500 per MWh. In this case, a demand bid of $1,500/MWh would set the market price. Buyers bidding less than this price for all or part of their total demand are in effect choosing not to purchase energy for $1,500 per MWh, and thus would have to reduce their demand accordingly. All other buyers would receive their requested energy. 79. A third way to allow the market price to reduce demand during an emergency is to require a demand curve for operating reserves in each RTO or ISO market. Under this approach, when available generating capacity falls short of combined energy demand and operating reserve requirements, the market price for energy and operating reserves would increase to specified levels (typically above the market-wide seller offer cap) and the price level would increase with the severity of the shortage. This approach would ensure that market prices reflect tight conditions on the grid without altering any of the market power mitigation restrictions on either supply or demand bids. The market rules in NYISO and ISO-NE include a demand curve for operating reserves that sets the real-time market price when operating reserves are low. These rules are intended to help assure reliability by reducing demand significantly during a shortage. The Commission could require each RTO and ISO to establish market rules that set real-time market prices at specific pre-determined values during an emergency when operating reserves are low. The Commission requests comment on whether it should require all ISOs and RTOs to adopt such a demand curve, how to set its parameters, and how to apply these rules to any local shortages with high locational prices that do not have a significant effect throughout the entire RTO or ISO region. In particular, how should an emergency be defined now that mandatory reliability rules are in effect? 80. A fourth way to allow the market price to reduce demand during an emergency is to set the market-clearing price at the payment made to participants in an emergency demand response program, described above. For example, if payments to participants in emergency demand response programs are set at $500 per MWh, the market-clearing price when these resources are called would be set at $500 per MWh. This approach would avoid the problem caused by the drop in market price that results from calling on an emergency demand response provider, which sends the wrong price signal to both suppliers and consumers. To implement this approach, the Commission would propose to amend RTO and ISO market rules to allow the payment to emergency demand response providers to set the market-clearing price for all supply and demand resources dispatched. RTOs and ISOs would have to amend their market rules on unit commitment and settlement to adjust wholesale energy prices outside the normal clearing process. RTOs and ISOs may also have to review and adjust the emergency conditions under which these emergency demand response resources would be called. 81. The Commission requests comment on these four ways to allow the market price to reduce demand during an emergency. Should any be used and, if so, which way or combination of ways would be most beneficial? For any of these ways to allow the market price to elicit demand reduction during an emergency, the Commission requests comments on whether it should require a specific method, or, given the differences in market design among the RTOs and ISOs, adopt the general requirement and direct each RTO and ISO to develop its own compliance mechanism. 82. Finally, as discussed above, some RTOs and ISOs have quantified the cost-effectiveness of demand response in their wholesale power markets. The Commission requests comments on whether it should require all RTOs and ISOs to do this for their markets that have demand response. IV. Long-Term Power Contracting in Organized Markets 83. Competitive wholesale markets need a strong infrastructure—both adequate electricity supply and a robust interstate transmission grid. Long-term contracts are an important tool to achieve and maintain a strong power infrastructure, particularly for new entrants into the generation sector and especially for many renewable energy developers. Long-term contracts are important to effective competition both in regions with organized wholesale markets and in regions without organized markets. Competitive solicitation is a sound vehicle to support long-term contracts in regions with and without organized markets. Order No. 890 and long-term firm transmission rights support long-term transmission service contracts in both kinds of regions. In this proceeding, the Commission proposes additional steps to facilitate opportunities for long-term power contracting in organized markets. Although long-term contracts are important in all regions, the Commission has a special responsibility in organized markets to ensure that our market rules support long-term contracting. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are additional steps that can be taken to support increased long-term contracting. The Commission discusses below the advantages of long-term power contracting in organized market regions and various factors that affect the degree to which such contracts are executed. The Commission then considers potential steps that could facilitate greater long-term power contracting in organized market regions, such as encouraging or requiring development of standardized long-term products and providing greater market transparency by posting on the internet information about recent long-term power contracts and offers for future long-term sales and purchases. Given the importance of long-term contracts to development of the strong infrastructure necessary to support competitive markets, the Commission also recognizes the need to provide contract certainty. The Commission believes it can discharge its legal duties under the FPA while providing contract certainty. A. Importance of Long-Term Power Contracts and Factors Affecting Contracting Decisions by Buyers and Sellers 84. The Commission believes that the organized market regions facilitate long-term contracting in several ways, such as eliminating pancaked rates for long distance power sales, eliminating internal loop flow problems that might otherwise lead to unplanned curtailment of long distance transmission service, and ensuring reliable transmission operation over a large area that encompasses many potential sellers and buyers of long-term power. These and other features of RTO and ISO transmission services expand the geographic scope of markets available to sellers and buyers of long-term power. Our goal here is to further improve opportunities for long-term contracting in RTO and ISO regions. 85. It is important that wholesale sellers and buyers have adequate opportunities to sell and buy electric power through long-term power contracts to allow them to manage their exposure to uncertain future spot market prices. Sellers and buyers should also have the opportunity to sell and buy electric power in the spot market. The Commission believes that it is important for buyers and sellers in organized markets to be able to choose a portfolio of short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term power supplies. Having portfolio choice allows market participants to manage the risk that comes from uncertainty. Forward power contracting by buyers combined with purchases from a spot market with demand response can be an efficient and low-cost way of meeting customer needs because both buyers and sellers can hedge risk as well as adapt to actual real-time supply and demand conditions. Competitive forward power contracting allows many sellers to compete to provide electric service, and greater reliance on long-term power contracting could decrease the incentive for sellers to exercise market power in the spot market if there is reduced opportunity to profit from such action. 86. At the Commission's technical conference on May 8, 2007, speakers on the long-term power contracting panel agreed that long-term power contracts are important to a well functioning electric market. 70 Customers argued that long-term contracts are essential to providing price stability and supporting the adequacy of supply over the long run. 71 Sellers argued that long-term contracts are important and often essential to financing new generation sources. 70 Transcript of Conference at 111, Conference on Competition in Wholesale Power Markets, Docket No. AD07-7-000 (May 8, 2007). 71 *Id.* at 107. 87. Customers and sellers differed sharply, however, on the nature and extent of any impediments to long-term contracts. Customers argued that suppliers are reluctant to sell power under long-term contracts at a price attractive to those customers. 72 They argued that the presence of liquid spot markets gives suppliers an incentive to sell most of their output on a daily or hourly basis, not through long-term contracts. By contrast, suppliers and their representatives said they are willing to sign long-term power contracts but asserted that buyers simply do not want to pay the long-term cost of power. In particular, they alleged that customers do not want to pay enough to finance new generation and any needed transmission investment. With respect to existing assets, suppliers argued that customers often want a price pegged to a particular fuel ( *e.g.* , coal or nuclear), even if that price does not reflect the long-term market value of electric power. 72 *See, e.g.* , Post-Technical Conference Comments of the American Public Power Association, Docket No. AD07-7-000 (Mar. 13, 2007); Supplemental Comments of the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Docket No. AD07-7-000 (Mar. 12, 2007). B. Commission Actions To Support Long-Term Power Contracts 88. The Commission fully supports reliance on long-term contracts to provide price stability, hedge risk, and support financing for new investments. In this regard, the Commission has taken a number of steps to facilitate long-term contracting. The Commission adopted a final rule on long-term transmission rights for organized market regions in Order No. 681. 73 The assurance of long-term transmission availability at a predictable cost is an important component of a buyer's decision to sign a long-term power contract with a distant supplier. 73 *Long-Term Firm Transmission Rights in Organized Electricity Markets,* Order No. 681, 71 FR 43,564 (August 1, 2006), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,226, *order on reh'g,* Order No. 681-A, 117 FERC ¶ 61,201 (2006). 89. Also, the Commission adopted transmission planning reforms in Order No. 890. These reforms provide an open and transparent process for wholesale entities and transmission providers to plan for the long-term needs of their customers, including making transmission investments that can support long-term contracts for generation. 90. The Commission has also sought to lower barriers to entry for new generation that can support long-term contracts. In a series of orders (Order Nos. 2003, 2006, and 661), 74 the Commission adopted interconnection rules for large, small, and wind generators that provide a known and stable process for requesting interconnection, receiving timely responses from transmission service providers, and determining who pays for various costs associated with the interconnection process and facilities. The Commission also reformed capacity markets in several regions to shift reliance from short-term purchases to forward markets held sufficiently in advance of delivery ( *e.g.* , three years) to be more consistent with the time necessary to construct new generation. 75 74 *Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures,* Order No. 2003, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,146 (2003), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,160, *order on reh'g,* Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,171 (2004), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,190 (2005), *aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs* v. *FERC* , 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007); *Standardization of Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures,* Order No. 2006, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,180, *order on reh'g,* Order No. 2006-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,196 (2005), *order granting clarification,* Order No. 2006-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,221 (2006), *appeal pending sub nom. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., et al.* v. *FERC* (U.S.C.A., D.C. Circuit, Docket Nos. 06-1018, *et al.* ); *Interconnection for Wind Energy,* Order No. 661, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,186, *order on reh'g,* Order No. 661-A, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,198 (2005). 75 *See Devon Power L.L.C.,* 115 FERC ¶ 61,340, *order on reh'g,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,133 (2006); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,331 (2006). 91. Through this ANOPR the Commission intends to consider whether there are other concrete steps that can be taken to facilitate long-term contracting. C. Proposed Commission Actions To Facilitate Long-Term Power Contracting 92. The Commission seeks comments on any concrete steps it can take to facilitate voluntary long-term power contracting in organized market regions. In seeking comment on this issue, however, the Commission is mindful of the limits of its jurisdiction. The Commission cannot compel buyers and sellers to enter into long-term contracts, and the purchasing practices of LSEs are often dictated by state policies, not those of this Commission. 93. Based on the comments received in the technical conferences and other actions being considered in various markets, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should: • Provide greater market transparency by requiring RTOs and ISOs to post information that could facilitate long-term contracts, such as by aggregating and posting information on long-term contract prices and quantities on a periodic basis. Would this information prove helpful to buyers and sellers? If so, how could the information be reported in a way that protects the confidentiality of individual contracts? Would other information be helpful to long-term contracting, such as the posting of estimates of transmission constraints and congestion costs on a long-term basis? • Require or encourage efforts to develop new standardized forward products. Would standardized products better facilitate long-term contracting? If so, what role should the Commission play? Should it encourage RTOs or ISOs to play an active role in this area or would that place them in a position of undertaking commercial functions? Is this a role better played by NAESB or other industry groups? • Take other steps such as having a dedicated portion of the ISO or RTO Web site for market participants to post offers to buy or sell power long-term? Would this prove helpful or is it a service that is better provided by the market? 94. Further, the Commission requests comments on whether we should consider any modification of the data requirements of the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR)—for example, to report the start date, term, and end date of long term power contracts—to provide information that would make transparent the average prices of long term power contracts of various terms and vintages. V. Market Monitoring Policies 95. Market monitors have played an integral role in the organized electric markets since the latter's inception, providing valuable reporting and analysis services not only to the Commission, but also to the RTOs and ISOs, to market participants, and to state commissions. In light of their importance, the Commission has required that all RTOs and ISOs incorporate a market monitoring function. 76 76 Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. and Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ¶ 31,089 at ¶ 31,016 (regarding RTOs). 96. Market monitoring units

(MMUs)take different forms and perform differing functions, depending on the individual tariffs of their respective RTO or ISO. The span of years over which market monitors have been in existence has given the Commission and others in the industry a track record upon which to evaluate the appropriate roles MMUs should play and the protections that might be adopted to assist them in performing those roles. Based both on our own experience with MMUs and on concerns raised by many interested entities, the Commission decided to initiate a comprehensive review of its market monitoring policies. To that end, the Commission held a technical conference on April 5, 2007, and received comments from 29 entities and individuals. 97. The Commission has considered those comments and drawn on our own extensive interaction with market monitors in formulating a proposed set of market monitoring policies. In this ANOPR, the Commission solicits comments and suggestions from the industry regarding these proposals. A. History of Market Monitoring 1. Order No. 2000 98. The Commission undertook its first generic consideration of market monitoring in Order No. 2000, which was issued in 1999 to encourage the formation of RTOs. In that Order, the Commission required an RTO to include market monitoring as one of its minimum functions, and to submit a market monitoring plan as part of its RTO proposal. The Order did not, however, impose a specific MMU structure on the RTOs. 77 77 Prior to this first generic consideration of MMUs, the Commission addressed market monitoring in connection with individual RTO/ISO proposals. *See Pacific Gas and Electric Co.,* 77 FERC ¶ 61,265 (1996), *order on reh'g,* 81 FERC ¶ 61,122 (1997), *order on clarification,* 83 FERC ¶ 61,033

(1998)(requiring the ISO to file a detailed monitoring plan and listing minimum elements for such a plan); *Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection,* 81 FERC ¶ 61,257

(1997)( *PJM Formation Order* ) (requiring PJM to develop a market monitoring program to evaluate market power and design flaws). 99. The Commission noted in Order No. 2000 that while MMUs were not intended to supplant Commission authority, they should be designed in such a way as to provide the Commission with an additional means of detecting market power abuses, market design flaws and opportunities for improvements in market efficiency. 78 The Commission ordered RTOs to incorporate in their market monitoring plans certain standards to be met by the MMUs, which include ensuring objective information about the markets that the RTO operates or administers, proposing appropriate action regarding opportunities for efficiency improvement, identifying market design flaws or market power abuses, and evaluating whether market participants comply with market rules. 79 The Commission observed that the information to be gleaned from market monitoring would be beneficial not only to the Commission, but also to state commissions and market participants. 80 78 Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ¶ 31,089 at ¶ 31,156. 79 *Id.* 80 *Id.* 2. Market Behavior Rules Order 100. The Commission next addressed the role of market monitors in its 2003 Order Amending Market-Based Rate Tariffs and Authorizations, 81 issued in connection with the promulgation of Market Behavior Rules applicable to entities possessing market-based rate authority. In that order, the Commission clarified the duties of MMUs in connection with enforcement matters, directing that MMUs refer compliance issues to the Commission and limiting direct enforcement action by the MMUs to objectively identifiable and sanctioned behavior expressly set forth in the RTO/ISO tariffs. 82 81 *Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations,* 105 FERC ¶ 61,218

(2003)( *Market Behavior Rules* ), *order on reh'g,* 107 FERC ¶ 61,175

(2004)( *Market Behavior Rules Rehearing Order* ). 82 *Market Behavior Rules,* 105 FERC ¶ 61,218 at P 182, 184. 101. In its subsequent Order on Rehearing, the Commission clarified that MMU personnel were not a substitute for Commission enforcement staff. 83 Rather, the Commission held that MMUs were to provide information to the Commission and its staff, so that the Commission could take appropriate action under the FPA. The Commission also announced the intention to make a thorough evaluation of the appropriate role of MMUs, which would lead to the issuance of a policy statement on the subject. 84 83 *Market Behavior Rules Rehearing Order,* 107 FERC ¶ 61,175 at P 165. 84 *Id.* P 168. 3. Policy Statement 102. The Commission issued the Policy Statement on Market Monitoring Units in May of 2005. 85 In this Policy Statement, the Commission identified four tasks which MMUs perform, 86 and for which they needed access to data and other resources. 87 Those duties were listed as follows: 85 *Market Monitoring Units in Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators,* 111 FERC ¶ 61,267

(2005)( *Policy Statement* ). 86 *Id.* P 2. 87 *Id.* P 3. a. To identify ineffective market rules and tariff provisions and recommend proposed rule and tariff changes to the ISO or RTO that promote wholesale competition and efficient market behavior. b. To review and report on the performance of wholesale markets in achieving customer benefits. c. To provide support to the ISO or RTO in the administration of Commission-approved tariff provisions related to markets administered by the ISO or RTO ( *e.g.* , day-ahead and real-time markets). d. To identify instances in which a market participant's behavior may require investigation and evaluation to determine whether a tariff violation has occurred, or which may be a potential Market Behavior Rule violation, and immediately notify appropriate Commission staff for possible investigation. 103. In an Appendix to the Policy Statement, the Commission set forth detailed Protocols for the MMUs to follow in referring potential tariff or Market Behavior Rule violations to the Commission. 88 This Policy Statement, together with the Protocols it incorporates, represents the last generic pronouncement by the Commission on the duties of MMUs. 88 *Id.* at Appendix A. The Market Behavior Rules extant at the time of the *Policy Statement* have since been in part rescinded, with the remainder codified. *See Conditions for Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders,* Order No. 674, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,208 (2006). Rescinded Market Behavior Rule 2 has been replaced by the Commission's Anti-Manipulation Rules. *See Prohibition of Energy Market Manipulation,* Order No. 670, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,202 ( *Market Manipulation Order* ), *order on reh'g,* 114 FERC ¶ 61,300 (2006). 104. In 2006, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

(PJM)filed proposed revisions to the MMU sections of its tariff, with the general aim of conforming its tariff to the provisions of the Policy Statement. Several parties filed comments, declaring a need to safeguard and advance the independence, clarity of function, and transparency of the MMU. The commenters argued that PJM's tariff should contain a clear statement of the MMU's independence, and should set forth all the rules relevant to the responsibilities and functions of the MMU. In the Order on Rehearing and Compliance Filing, the Commission noted that these concerns were of a generic nature and not necessarily limited to PJM. 89 The Commission decided to initiate a generic review of our MMU policies and announced that it would hold a technical conference to explore the issues raised by the commenters. 90 89 *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,263, at P 19

(2006)( *PJM Tariff Rehearing Order* ). 90 *Id.* P 20. 4. Technical Conference 105. The Commission held the technical conference on market monitoring policies on April 5, 2007. At the conference, the Commissioners heard from interested commenters on the following general subjects: the development of the concept and functions of market monitoring, the MMUs' role with respect to the Commission, the MMUs' role with respect to ISOs and RTOs, and the MMUs' role with respect to the various stakeholders such as states, generators, transmission providers, and customers. 91 91 *Review of Market Monitoring Policies,* Second Notice of Technical Conference, Docket No. AD07-8-000 (2007). 106. Two principal issues received the bulk of attention from the commenters at the technical conference. Those were:

(i)The need for, and suggested methods of achieving, independence on the part of MMUs so they can perform their assigned functions; and

(ii)the content and proper recipients of the market data and analysis developed by the MMUs. Every commenter touched upon these issues in one fashion or another. 107. The Commission is mindful of the fact that both independence and information sharing raise complex concerns, which require a careful weighing of the needs of various interests and constituencies. Nonetheless, the Commission is in general agreement with the importance both of safeguarding MMU independence and ensuring useful and transparent market analysis by the MMUs. Indeed, since the very beginnings of market monitoring, the Commission has emphasized the importance of independence and objectivity on the part of market monitors, 92 and has required that MMUs analyze and report on any inefficiencies and structural flaws they detect in the market. 93 In our own independent review of our market monitoring policies, the Commission has identified concerns which also fall within both these areas. Therefore, in this ANOPR, the Commission structures the proposals for modifying and standardizing the market monitoring function within these two general categories. 92 *PJM Formation Order,* 81 FERC at 62,282; Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ¶ 31,089 at 31,061. 93 *PJM Formation Order,* 81 FERC at 62,282; Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ¶ 31,089 at 31,156. B. Independence and Function 108. The functions MMUs are expected to perform, as well as the independence needed to carry out those functions, have always been critical concerns in discussions of market monitoring. There were some differences of opinion expressed at the technical conference regarding the appropriate functions MMUs should perform, but virtually every commenter agreed with the need for independence. The commenters, however, offered many varying proposals as to how to achieve that goal, as well as how to provide for MMU accountability. The Commission believes that there are several means by which to balance independence and accountability on the part of MMUs, and therefore proposes a balanced and flexible approach to the problem which includes oversight protection, tariff safeguards and tools, and the elimination of conflicts of interest. The Commission also proposes certain changes in the functions MMUs are expected to perform, which we believe will strengthen both their independence and accountability. We solicit comments regarding our proposed changes, as well as comments as to whether the MMUs' existing functions need to be clarified and whether MMUs should perform any additional functions. 1. Structure and Tools 109. The Commission has never required that MMUs conform to any standardized organizational structure. As a result, RTOs and ISOs have developed varying structural relationships between themselves and their MMUs. PJM, for instance, has an internal market monitor; MISO has an external market monitor, and the other RTOs and ISOs have hybrid structures. Some commenters at the technical conference favored an internal market monitor, one whose personnel are employees of the RTO or ISO. These commenters contended that such employees are closer to the actual operations of the RTO or ISO and as a result have better access to information. Other commenters favored an external market monitor, an independent contractor who is hired by the RTO or ISO. These commenters contended that such an entity inherently has more independence from the RTO or ISO than do employees of the organization. However, most commenters were of the opinion that the particular structural relationship between the MMU and the RTO or ISO was of secondary importance, provided that the RTO/ISO tariff contained provisions ensuring independence on the part of the MMU. 110. From our own experience, the Commission has observed no appreciable difference among the performance of the market monitors that can be attributed to whether they are external or internal to their RTO or ISO. The Commission therefore declines to impose a “one size fits all” approach toward the structure of MMUs. 111. It is axiomatic that independence can be achieved only if MMUs have adequate tools with which to perform their job. Therefore, the Commission proposes requiring each RTO and ISO to include in its tariff a provision imposing upon itself the obligation to provide its MMU with access to market data, resources, and personnel sufficient to enable the MMU to carry out its functions. 94 In addition, the tariff should include a provision directing the MMU to report to the Commission any concerns it has with inadequate access to market data, resources, or personnel, and describe the steps it has taken with the RTO or ISO to resolve these concerns. We also seek comment on the question of how independence on the part of MMUs can best be achieved. 2. Oversight 112. As several commenters pointed out at the technical conference, there is an inherent tension in a structure that requires MMUs to report to RTO/ISO management yet, at the same time, perform evaluations and issue reports that may be critical of that management. For example, MMUs are expected to evaluate and report on RTO/ISO market designs and performance, and to include RTO/ISO operations in their analyses of market flaws or inefficiencies. Further, if an MMU detects a potential tariff violation on the part of its RTO or ISO, it is obligated to bring the matter to the attention of the Commission. It can be difficult for an MMU to discharge these oversight and reporting obligations effectively unless it has some degree of independence from RTO/ISO management. Such a reporting relationship can create a conflict of interest because the MMU may temper its opinions out of deference to management, or those opinions may be overruled by management. Importantly, these concerns can be present whether the MMU personnel are in an internal or external structural relationship to their RTO or ISO. 113. Therefore, the Commission proposes that each RTO and ISO, in addition to maintaining a market monitoring function, be required to have its MMU report either directly to the RTO's or ISO's board of directors or directly to a committee of independent board directors. This requirement would apply to all structural types of MMU, whether internal, external or a hybrid combination of the two. 95 The Commission is of the view that it has the authority to impose this type of requirement on RTOs and ISOs, but seeks comment on this issue as well as on the proposal itself. 3. Functions 114. The issue of independence is integrally related to the functions that the MMUs are expected to perform. Most of the functions performed by MMUs have remained relatively constant since the inception of market monitoring, and center around market analysis and the evaluation of participant behavior. Commenters at the technical conference were generally supportive of the functions which the Commission identified in its 2005 Policy Statement, with one exception discussed below. 94 PJM's tariff, for instance, requires PJM to provide appropriate staffing for its MMU, and to ensure that the MMU has adequate resources, access to required information, and the cooperation of PJM staff. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., FERC Electric Tariff, Attachment M, Section V. 95 The Commission notes that, if adopted, this policy would mark a departure from the holding in *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.* , 116 FERC ¶ 61,038, at P 38, *order on reh'g* 117 FERC ¶ 61,263 (2006). After giving due consideration to the comments submitted at the technical conference, and for the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that a generic change in policy may be appropriate and is therefore seeking comment on the issue. 115. The MMU functions upon which there was general agreement at the technical conference were:

(1)Identifying ineffective market rules and tariff provisions and recommending proposed rule and tariff changes,

(2)reviewing and reporting on the performance of the wholesale markets, and

(3)identifying and notifying the Commission staff of instances in which a market participant's behavior may require investigation. The Commission supports these three functions and proposes to continue them, with one important modification. In the Policy Statement, the MMUs were directed to advise the RTO or ISO of any recommendations for rule or tariff changes, with no mention being made of also advising the Commission. The Commission proposes adding the requirement that the MMUs also advise the Commission and other interested entities, which would include relevant state commissions and market participants. This added requirement would go a long way toward ensuring the transparency desired by many of the commenters. Furthermore, as noted above, MMUs should refer to the Commission any suspected rule or tariff violation committed by an RTO or ISO, as well as those committed by market participants. 116. The Commission also proposes retaining the Protocols governing referral of potential market violations to the Commission, which are included as an Appendix to the Policy Statement. However, since issuance of the Policy Statement, Market Behavior Rule 2, referred to in the Protocols, has been rescinded and replaced by the Commission's Anti-Manipulation Rules. 96 Therefore, violations currently to be referred to the Commission include conduct suspected of violating the Anti-Manipulation Rules, as well as tariff violations and violations of the remaining, codified Market Behavior Rules. In addition, the Commission proposes that the MMU also refer any suspected violations of other Commission-approved rules and regulations, such as Codes of Conduct 97 and Standards of Conduct. 4. Mitigation and Operations 117. As mentioned, one of the four MMU functions listed in the Policy Statement was the source of some debate at the technical conference. The function in question is that of providing support to the RTO or ISO in the administration of its tariff, which usually takes the form of MMU-conducted market power mitigation. 98 Certain commenters were concerned that such mitigation is being conducted without an adequate theoretical or empirical basis and is having a deleterious effect on the electric power market. 118. The Commission does not believe this rulemaking is the appropriate forum to address issues of market power and mitigation. However, the Commission is concerned that an MMU's performance of these mitigation functions can compromise its independence in evaluating and reporting on market performance. In order for the MMU to support the RTO or ISO in tariff administration, it must be subordinate to RTO and ISO management. The operations and mitigation functions performed by MMUs directly affect market outcomes and performance. Because of this, there is an inherent conflict between an MMU reporting on market outcomes that the MMU itself has influenced. This conflict is of particular concern where the MMU has significant discretion in affecting offers, bids, and prices. There is significant potential for conflict between an MMU maintaining independence of RTO and ISO management and supporting tariff administration in a subordinate capacity. It may not be possible for MMUs to maintain independence while supporting tariff administration. 119. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes operational activities affecting the market, including mitigation, are more properly performed by the RTOs and ISOs themselves as part of their responsibility to administer their Commission-approved tariffs. Maintaining a clear functional separation in this regard between RTOs and ISOs and the MMUs would free the MMUs to report objectively on whether the RTOs and ISOs have done an appropriate job in designing and administering wholesale power markets. Therefore, the Commission proposes requiring that MMUs refrain from assisting the RTO or ISO in tariff administration, from participating in RTO/ISO market operations, and from taking direct actions to influence the market, and instead concentrate on their role of providing market evaluation, reports, and advice. 96 *See Market Manipulation Order* , FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,202. 97 The term “Code of Conduct” has been replaced by “Affiliate Restrictions” in the Final Rule for *Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity, and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities* , 119 FERC ¶ 61,295 (2007). 98 This function was not part of the original conception of market monitoring as expressed in Order No. 2000. 5. Ethics 120. In order for an MMU to carry out its functions, an activity which requires disinterested objectivity, it is vital that MMU personnel maintain the highest ethical standards. Removal of the conflicts of interest noted above should go a long way toward facilitating the achievement of those standards. However, as a further safeguard, the Commission proposes imposing certain minimum ethics standards upon market monitor personnel, whether the MMU is internal or external to its RTO or ISO, in particular prohibiting such personnel from owning financial interests in any market participants. The Commission notes that all existing RTOs and ISOs have some type of conflict of interest or standard of conduct provision, although not always in their tariffs. The Commission proposes standardizing such provisions and requiring their inclusion in the tariffs themselves. The Commission solicits comments as to whether the provisions should be standardized and, if so, what particular provisions would be appropriate. 6. Tariff Provisions 121. In order for MMUs to achieve transparency of function, the detailed obligations imposed upon them must be made clear and accessible. Likewise, the provisions safeguarding MMU independence and delineating MMU functions must be included in the tariffs of the RTOs and ISOs in order to be reviewed, approved and enforced by the Commission. Currently, MISO and SPP are the only RTOs or ISOs that centralize the MMU provisions in their tariffs. 99 Others scatter their MMU provisions in multiple sections of their tariffs and in other documents or, in the case of NYISO, not in the tariff at all. 100 The Commission proposes that each RTO and ISO set forth all its provisions involving market monitoring in one section of its tariff. C. Information Sharing 122. As noted in the Policy Statement, a key function which MMUs are expected to perform is that of analyzing the markets to determine if they are competitive, and proposing actions which might be useful in eliminating design flaws. Although RTOs and ISOs are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission, we recognize the relationship between wholesale and retail markets. The Commission also recognizes the state commission interest in the performance of wholesale power markets. In Order No. 2000, the Commission acknowledged that information developed by MMUs would be beneficial not only to itself, but to others as well. 101 However, inasmuch as there is a wealth of data gathered by MMUs, it is important to identify the types of information that each constituency needs to assist it in performing its tasks. The Commission favors both a fuller sharing of information and identification of the relevant information desired, so that the needs of the Commission, the state commissions, market participants, and the public may be satisfied. 1. Information Needs 123. Representatives of state commissions and several other interested parties submitted comments at the technical conference expressing their desire to receive more information from the MMUs. The state commission representatives argue that they need such information to assist them in performing their regulatory functions, given the integral relationship between wholesale and retail rates. The Commission is sympathetic to these requests. The Commission recognizes that state commissions are not stakeholders, but a separate class from market participants. As noted above, although RTOs and ISOs are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission, state commissions have a legitimate interest in the performance of wholesale power markets. However, their requests for information must be balanced, in some cases, against confidentiality concerns. Public disclosure of certain information, such as participant-specific offers or cost data, could harm market participants or could facilitate collusion under some circumstances. The Commission must therefore balance state concerns regarding information access with these countervailing confidentiality concerns. 124. The comments submitted at the technical conference did not identify the particular categories of information needed by state commissions. The Commission therefore proposes below general areas of information which it believes could be provided to the states without jeopardizing the need for confidentiality on the part of market participants. The Commission requests comments as to whether our proposal meets the needs of the state commissions, and whether there are other kinds of information that are needed by state commissions to fulfill their regulatory responsibilities. We further request comment on whether there is a generic standard or test that could be used to determine what specific information should be provided to a state commission. The Commission also proposes that some, but not all, of the information to be supplied to the state commissions also be made available to market participants. Finally, the Commission sets forth the information which it believes must remain protected, and solicits comment on whether harm could result from our proposed information disclosures. 2. Information To Be Provided 125. The Commission proposes that MMUs be required to report comprehensively on aggregate market and RTO/ISO performance on a regular basis, no less frequently than quarterly, to the Commission staff, to staff of interested state commissions, and to the management and board of directors of the RTOs and ISOs. The MMUs would be required to deliver materials supporting their conclusions, and make one or more of their staff members available for a conference call attended by representatives of these constituencies. During this process, the MMU representative would be expected to work cooperatively to develop any further materials which might be useful to the Commission, to the state commissions and to the RTOs and ISOs. The Commission envisions that such combined reporting and conference calls would permit targeted requests for information and encourage a fuller exchange of relevant data than may be provided in the MMUs' yearly State of the Market reports, which are currently required by tariff or the internal policies of all the RTOs and ISOs. 99 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., Open Access Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff, Module D; Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Open Access Transmission Tariff, Attachments AG, AH. 100 NYISO's market monitoring plan is available on its Web site and may be found at *http://www.nyiso.com/public/documents/tariffs/market_services.jsp.* 101 Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ¶ 31,089 at 31,156. 126. The Commission cautions that such reports and meetings are in no way intended to restrict the MMU from meeting individually with Commission staff, staff of state commissions, market participants, or other stakeholders, or sharing information with these various constituencies, subject to appropriate restrictions on confidentiality. The Commission is of the view that, in general, as much helpful and appropriate information about the performance of RTO/ISO markets as possible should be made public. 127. The Commission proposes that offer and bid data, without identification of the market participants, be posted on the RTO's or ISO's Web site, where it will be available to the Commission, to interested state commissions, and to stakeholders. The Commission proposes a lag of three months for posting this data and solicit comments as to whether that time period is sufficient to protect commercially sensitive data and to guard against misuse of the data. 3. Tailored Requests for Information 128. The Commission proposes that state commissions may make requests for additional information from the MMUs. The Commission understands that information such as general analyses of the market and aggregated price data may assist state commissions in performing their regulatory functions, and believes reasonable requests along those lines may be appropriate. The Commission seeks comment on how to structure this proposal to ensure that the information requests are useful to the states, while at the same time respectful of the limited resources of the MMUs, and how to ensure confidentiality with respect to certain market data. 129. The Commission believes that the foregoing proposal allowing states to request tailored information should be for information regarding general market trends and performance, not information designed to aid state enforcement or related actions against individual companies. States have their own enforcement agencies which are more properly employed for such tasks. The limited resources of the MMUs should be confined to providing information regarding the workings of the market itself and identifying any structural flaws which the MMUs think should be addressed. 102 However, a state commission would remain free, on a case-by-case basis, to request that the Commission authorize the release of otherwise proscribed data. The Commission would evaluate any such request to determine if it demonstrates a compelling need for the requested information, and decide whether adequate protections can be fashioned for commercially sensitive material. 102 However, if during the ordinary course of its activities an MMU were to discover evidence of wrongdoing that was within a state commission's jurisdiction, it is expected that the MMU would report such information to the state commission. 4. Commission Referrals 130. The Commission continues to believe that MMUs should respect the confidentiality of their referrals of suspected tariff and rule violations to the Commission, and not disclose such referrals to other entities, including state commissions. 103 Nor does the Commission intend to share such information, or the result of its activities that are initiated based upon a MMU referral, on a generic basis. The Commission notes that its rules require that such information be kept nonpublic unless the Commission authorizes, in any given case, that it be publicly disclosed. 104 Such disclosure is the exception and not the rule, and each such instance is carefully considered by the Commission with due regard to the commercially sensitive nature of the material and to the effect disclosure may have on the willingness of jurisdictional entities to file self reports with the Commission and otherwise cooperate in its investigations. As the Commission has observed previously, confidentiality provides reasonable protection to persons who become involved in these investigations and fosters cooperation with the Commission. It also protects innocent persons who might be erroneously alleged to have committed wrongdoing or be otherwise adversely affected by simply being associated with an investigation. 105 The Commission notes, however, that its staff does give MMUs generic feedback regarding enforcement issues, and we intend to continue this practice in order to provide guidance in matters relating to their referral function. 103 *See PJM Tariff Rehearing Order* , 117 FERC ¶ 61,263 at P 27. 104 18 CFR 1b.9 (2006). Other exceptions include cases where the information has been made a matter of public record in an adjudicatory proceeding, and where disclosure is required by the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 *et seq.* (2006). 105 *PJM Tariff Rehearing Order,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,263 at P 27. D. Pro Forma Tariff Section 131. The Commission intends to include in its subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking a proposed pro forma MMU section for the RTOs' and ISOs' OATTs. The Commission anticipates that each RTO and ISO may wish to modify certain provisions, or add others, to such pro forma tariff to suit its particular needs. Nonetheless, the Commission believes it will be useful to develop specific core provisions that are standardized across the various RTOs and ISOs, particularly in the areas of independence, MMU functions, and information sharing. The Commission anticipates including in the pro forma tariff protocols for the referral of tariff and market manipulation violations to the Office of Enforcement, as well as protocols for the referral of perceived market design flaws and recommended tariff changes to the Office of Energy Markets and Reliability. The Commission solicits comments on the structure and content of such a pro forma section. E. Conclusion 132. The Commission's goal is to strengthen market monitoring, and we advance proposals in this ANOPR that respond to concerns expressed by commenters at the technical conference, as well as that reflect our own observations formed over the years from working within the framework of the existing market monitoring provisions. The Commission seeks comment on its proposals and on other matters germane to market monitoring. VI. Responsiveness of RTOS and ISOS 133. This section of the ANOPR addresses proposals to increase RTO/ISO responsiveness to stakeholders. The Commission proposes one reform to increase the responsiveness of RTO/ISO boards and seeks comment on whether any other reforms are necessary. A. The Challenge of Improving RTO and ISO Responsiveness to Stakeholders 134. Order Nos. 888 and 2000 require that an ISO or RTO be independent from market participants. The Commission requires this independence to ensure that market participants have nondiscriminatory access to the grid and market rules are developed and administered in a manner that does not favor one market participant over another. After five to ten years of experience with several such entities, however, some stakeholders are concerned that RTOs and ISOs have achieved independence without being adequately sensitive to the needs of their customers and members. 135. Given the size and complexity of RTOs and ISOs today, it is not surprising that tension has arisen between the goals of independence and responsiveness. An RTO or ISO cannot satisfy every group on every issue. When an RTO or ISO makes a difficult decision, those who support the decision often believe it has acted “objectively” and “independently,” while those who oppose that decision often believe the RTO or ISO has not been “responsive” to their concerns. 136. This natural tension between independence and responsiveness is compounded by the number of functions that an RTO or ISO performs and for which it is ultimately held accountable by these several types of entities. An RTO or ISO has the primary responsibility to operate the regional transmission system safely in accordance with good utility practice and reliably in accordance with Commission-approved reliability standards. It is responsible for providing open and non-discriminatory transmission access under a regional transmission tariff. The provision of open-access transmission service in itself requires that many subordinate functions be carried out, such as maintaining an efficient transmission reservation system, scheduling transmission services, managing congestion on the grid, coordinating local transmission system enhancements, and developing the region's long-term transmission plan. RTOs and ISOs typically have adopted innovative transmission pricing mechanisms such as locational pricing with allocations or auctions of financial transmission rights that hedge transmission congestion. 137. An RTO or ISO is also responsible for administering the organized energy markets. Depending on the region, there are day-ahead and real-time energy markets, markets for various ancillary services, and forward capacity markets, with provisions for ensuring that demand response resources can participate in these markets. It is responsible for all aspects of operation of these markets and for providing an independent market monitor. The RTO or ISO may also have responsibilities regarding resource adequacy. Every RTO or ISO must maintain a reliable system for metering and measuring power flows and customer services systems for billing and settling accounts for many large financial transactions. 138. As an RTO's or ISO's functional responsibilities grow, some customers may value the new functions while others prefer the regional organization to focus on its original basic functions. New services come at a cost. Start-up costs can be significant for new services, and the RTO or ISO must decide how to recover the costs from its customers. These decisions may be controversial. In particular, determining who benefits from new transmission facilities and how their costs should be allocated can be very contentious and can lead to customer dissatisfaction with the RTO or ISO. Decisions related to resource adequacy, such as whether to adopt capacity markets or to rely more heavily on energy price signals to incent new generation and demand response, have also become very contentious. 139. Given these challenges, the Commission is considering, as discussed further below, proposals to improve RTO/ISO responsiveness in a manner that does not compromise their independence. B. Prior Commission Actions Regarding RTO and ISO Responsiveness 140. In Order No. 888, the Commission encouraged but did not require the formation of ISOs. Order No. 888 delineated eleven principles defining the operations and structure of a properly functioning ISO. 106 Similarly, in Order No. 2000, the Commission encouraged utilities to join RTOs voluntarily and set out the characteristics that an RTO must possess and the minimum functions that it must perform. 107 Embodied in both Order Nos. 888 and 2000 is the requirement that the regional transmission entity be independent from market participants so that it can provide regional transmission and energy market services on a non-discriminatory basis. 106 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles January 1991-June 1996 ¶ 31,036 at 31,730-32. 107 Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ¶ 31,089 at 30,993-94. 141. Although it required independence, Order No. 2000 did not mandate detailed governance requirements for an RTO board of directors. Instead, it stated that the Commission would review governance proposals on a case-by-case basis. 108 The Commission emphasized the importance of stakeholder input regarding both RTO formation and ongoing operations, and it required the RTO or ISO to consult with its members and other stakeholders through an advisory committee prior to taking action. The Commission stated that, because there is a non-stakeholder board, it is important that this board not become isolated. 109 For this reason, the Commission explained that there should be both formal and informal mechanisms to ensure that stakeholders can convey their concerns to the non-stakeholder board. 142. The Commission also required that RTOs have an “open architecture” so that the organization and its members have the necessary flexibility to improve the structure, geographic scope, market scope, and operations of the organization, as long as proposed changes continue to satisfy RTO minimum characteristics and functions. 110 Stated another way, “open architecture” meant that the original RTO design could evolve as needed to reflect changes in member needs. 143. Over the past few years, many RTO and ISO customers have raised concerns at the Commission about RTO or ISO responsiveness to customers on such matters as the level or growth rate of RTO or ISO administrative costs and the effectiveness of the customer voice in processes for deciding whether to undertake new expenditures. In response to concerns over accounting and financial reporting rules for RTOs and ISOs, the Commission issued a Financial Reporting Notice of Inquiry

(NOI)on September 16, 2004. It asked for comments on RTO and ISO accounting matters and whether RTOs and ISOs have appropriate incentives to be cost-effective. 111 This led directly to Commission Order No. 668, *Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public Utilities Including RTOs.* 112 Order No. 668 amended the Commission's regulations to update the accounting requirements for public utilities and licensees, including RTOs and ISOs. Specifically, Order No. 668 created new financial accounts to better categorize costs and changed the reporting requirements for all public utilities, including RTOs and ISOs, to improve financial reporting of operations, revenue, and expense accounts. The new financial reporting requirements allow the Commission and other interested persons to compare public utility expenditures more readily than under the prior rule, which improves the transparency of financial information and facilitates clear understanding of RTO/ISO costs. 113 144. In addition to Commission actions, RTOs and ISOs themselves have undertaken efforts to improve relations and communications with customers and other stakeholders. For example, the CAISO has enhanced its participatory budget development process to allow stakeholders to ask questions and raise concerns well before the budget becomes final. PJM, at the request of its stakeholders, has introduced procedures under which stakeholder issues may be immediately reviewed by the board. 114 PJM has also proposed to reintroduce a stakeholder “liaison committee”—a committee of stakeholder representatives that will advise the PJM board directly—and is seeking stakeholder input on how that committee should be structured. 115 108 *Id.* at 31,073-74. 109 *Id.* 110 *Id.* at 31,170. 111 *Financial Reporting and Cost Accounting and Recovery Practices for Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators,* Notice of Inquiry, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 35,546 (2004). 112 *Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public Utilities Including RTOs,* Order No. 668, 70 FR 77,626 (Dec. 30, 2005), FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,199 (2005), *order on reh'g,* Order No. 668-A, 71 FR 28,513 (May 16, 2006), FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶ 31,215 (2006). 113 Order No. 668, FERC Stats. & Regs., Regulations Preambles 2001-2005 ¶ 31,199 at P 5. 114 *See* May 4, 2007 letter from Phillip G. Harris, Chairman and CEO, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., to PJM Members and Stakeholders, at *http://www.pjm.com/committees/members/postings/20070504-letter-to-members-post.pdf.* *See also* Transcript of Conference at 204, Conference on Competition in Wholesale Power Markets, Docket No. AD07-7-000 (May 8, 2007). 115 *Id.* 145. The Commission is considering below whether additional reforms should be adopted to further increase RTO and ISO responsiveness. C. Proposed Commission Action To Improve RTO and ISO Responsiveness 146. In this section, the Commission proposes reforms related to ISO and RTO boards and seeks comment on whether any other reforms are appropriate. 1. A Responsive RTO or ISO Board of Directors 116 116 The term “board of directors” is used in this ANOPR to refer to the highest governing body. Certain RTOs and ISOs may use another term. For example, the California Independent System Operator Corporation uses the term “Board of Governors.” 147. Customer responsiveness must begin with the RTO/ISO board. A well-functioning and responsible board of directors is necessary for establishing the strategic direction of the RTO or ISO, including customer orientation. Board members are expected to have the expertise needed to set such direction and assess whether it is being followed successfully. When approving an application for RTO status, the Commission has considered primarily the independence of board members in the board selection process. 117 117 *Grid Florida, L.L.C.,* 94 FERC ¶ 61,020 (2001); *Arizona Public Service Co.,* 101 FERC ¶ 61,033, *order on reh'g,* 101 FERC ¶ 61,350 (2002). 148. The Commission's preliminary conclusion is that representatives of customers and other stakeholders must have some form of effective direct access to the board of directors. Each RTO or ISO would be required to develop and implement a means to ensure that customers and other stakeholders have effective direct access to the board. The mechanism would not have to be the same for each RTO or ISO. One RTO or ISO might choose to form a committee of stakeholder representatives with some form of direct access to the board, and this committee may be distinct from the various technical committees that have already been formed. Another RTO or ISO might choose to create direct access by having a hybrid board of directors composed of both independent members and representatives of stakeholders. A third RTO or ISO might devise a distinct third means. However, each mechanism would have to be effective in allowing customers and other stakeholders to present their views on major issues directly to the board. 149. The Commission seeks comment on whether RTO or ISO responsiveness to stakeholders requires some form of direct board access. If so, what steps can be taken to ensure that both majority and minority interests have access to the board? If not, is there a better way to ensure that RTO and ISO boards of directors are responsive to customers? 150. The Commission stresses its intent to be flexible regarding how the RTOs and ISOs may improve responsiveness to stakeholders. As mentioned, at least two mechanisms, if carefully designed and implemented, could accomplish this, hybrid boards and board advisory committees. 151. A hybrid board would be composed of both independent members and stakeholder members. Each member would have a seat on the board and participate fully in board decisions with an equal vote. The Commission believes it should be possible to structure a hybrid board that does not sacrifice overall board independence. 118 Adding non-independent stakeholders to the board would expose the board to the concerns of stakeholders in the most direct manner. 118 We remind RTOs and ISOs that the Commission's regulations regarding RTO governance require periodic audits of the RTO or ISO governance by an independent auditor. *See* 18 CFR 35.34(j)(1)(iv)(A) (2006). 152. An RTO or ISO that intends to satisfy this proposed requirement with a hybrid board would have to address certain matters. Stakeholder members must not be allowed to serve their own interests inappropriately. Accordingly, the Commission presents here for comment certain restrictions that may be necessary for a hybrid board proposal. First, the number of stakeholder members must be a minority of the board. The stakeholder members cannot make up more than forty-nine percent of the board, and a lower percentage such as twenty-five percent may be more appropriate. Second, all subcommittees of the board should be structured so that the stakeholder members together cannot overcome the unanimous vote of the independent board members. Third, any appointment to an RTO or ISO board of a senior official or director of a stakeholder company that would constitute an interlocking directorate position under FPA section 305 119 would require prior Commission approval before the member would join the RTO/ISO board. 120 119 16 U.S.C. § 825d (2000). 120 *See* 16 U.S.C. 825d(b)-(c) (2000); 18 CFR 45 (2006). Pursuant to section 305(b) of the FPA, interlocks between unaffiliated public utilities, interlocks between a public utility and other specified entities, and interlocks among affiliated public utilities must be submitted to the Commission for approval before a prospective director holds and assumes the duties of the interlocking position. 153. A second way to satisfy the proposed requirement would be a board advisory committee. It would be comprised of senior executives of the various stakeholder groups, serving as an expert panel that would inform the board of stakeholder views. The board advisory committee would have no voting authority on board decisions. It would, however, have authority to make recommendations directly to the board on matters before the board and on matters it believes the board should address. The board advisory committee could advise the board about the expected effect on customers and other stakeholder groups of proposals before the board. The board advisory committee would not necessarily make decisions on what to recommend to the board; instead, minority views could also be presented directly to the board. 154. The Commission envisions a board advisory committee of senior stakeholder representatives that would not necessarily consist of those on technical stakeholder committees in RTOs and ISOs today. Members of the board advisory committee would be selected to represent a reasonable range of diverse interests. The number of members should be decided with attention to forming a committee of reasonable size that can engage the board in thoughtful discussion. 155. The Commission encourages interested parties to comment regarding the proposal and possible approaches. In addition, the Commission seeks responses to the following questions about customer access to the board of an RTO or ISO: • How should any hybrid board be structured? What is an appropriate limit on the percentage of non-independent board members? If a variety of customer views are to be represented, what implications does this have for the size of the board? • What, if any, rules and restrictions should be placed on the stakeholder board members of a hybrid board? • Can the reform proposed here be met through other means such as increased direct board interaction with customers and other stakeholders, *e.g.* , through open board meetings or through required attendance of board members at major stakeholder meetings of the RTO? • Are there measures—such as customer satisfaction measures, cost oversight benchmarks, or stakeholder participation measures—that RTOs and ISOs should use to assess the success of the mechanism for improving responsiveness? 2. Inquiry Regarding Better Responsiveness Through Improved Practices and Processes 156. The Commission also requests comment about whether any other reforms should be adopted to improve RTO and ISO responsiveness to its customers and other stakeholders. The Commission is interested in particular in whether RTOs and ISOs could achieve better responsiveness—or make their responsiveness more apparent to their stakeholders—through improvements in the areas of

(1)RTO and ISO executive management practices,

(2)effective RTO and ISO stakeholder processes, and

(3)transparent RTO and ISO budget processes. a. RTO and ISO Executive Management Practices 157. Executive management ensures that RTO and ISO goals set by the board are met, including any goal to be responsive to customers and other stakeholders. Executive management evaluates such things as how to improve RTO/ISO services, whether to provide new services, and how to contain administrative costs. Management is likely to be the first to hear directly from customers about their concerns with current RTO/ISO operations or proposed new programs or expenditures. 158. Managers should be responsive to stakeholders but cannot be beholden to any particular stakeholder group. At a minimum, managers should seek out customer concerns and pay serious attention to these concerns. Managers should evaluate whether some appropriate action is needed to address these concerns. They may decide to address some concerns and not others, keeping in mind the independence of the RTO or ISO, its appropriate role in the region as transmission provider and market administrator, and the trade-off between new services and cost containment. 159. The Commission requests comment on whether any reforms are necessary to increase management responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. For example, should the Commission encourage or require RTOs or ISOs to: • Publish a strategic plan that includes plans for assuring responsiveness to customers and other stakeholders. • Measure or otherwise assess customer satisfaction periodically, through a survey or other means. • Have a formal process for gathering and evaluating recommendations for improving services to customers. • Set performance criteria for executive managers based in part on responsiveness to stakeholders. • Relate executive compensation to a measure of responsiveness to stakeholders. b. Effective RTO and ISO Stakeholder Processes 160. The stakeholder processes in RTOs and ISOs today serve several purposes. They are intended to provide the views of various customer and stakeholder groups to the RTOs and ISOs. Some are also intended to help the RTOs and ISOs make decisions on sometimes contentious transmission and market matters. The Commission is interested in comments about how well these processes are working and how their effectiveness might be improved. 161. The Commission requests replies to the following questions about RTO and ISO stakeholder processes: • What stakeholder processes have proved to be particularly effective? • How can the effectiveness of a stakeholder process be assessed? • Does the voting structure of RTO and ISO stakeholder groups achieve balanced representation? • Are minority interests adequately represented in stakeholder processes? • How should an RTO or ISO respond when it must make a decision, such as deciding how to comply with a Commission regulation, and a stakeholder consensus cannot be reached? • What actions, if any, can the Commission take to improve stakeholder processes? For example, should the Commission ask each RTO or ISO to review and report on the strengths and weaknesses of its current stakeholder processes? c. Transparent RTO and ISO Budgeting Processes 162. Some market participants contend that they do not have an adequate opportunity to review or understand an RTO's or ISO's budget in time to influence the budget decision. They point in particular to RTOs and ISOs that use a formula rate to pass costs through to customers. Although the Commission has found the current cost recovery mechanisms for all these entities to be just and reasonable, 121 stakeholders express concern about ineffective review of significant cost increases before the costs flow through a formula rate. The NYISO and Midwest ISO, for example, recover their costs of administering the transmission grid and market operations through a formula rate. 122 Some customers believe that the budget for an RTO or ISO with a formula rate may not include enough details to understand the reason for an expenditure or its effect on their rates. 123 This suggests that, in an RTO or ISO with a formula rate, there may be a greater need for customer discussion of budget decisions with major cost consequences before the costs are incurred. 121 *See California Independent System Operator Corp.,* 103 FERC ¶ 61,114 (2003), *order on reh'g,* 106 FERC ¶ 61,032 (2004); *California Independent System Operator Corp.,* 110 FERC ¶ 61,090 (2005); *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,* 97 FERC ¶ 61,033 (2001); *Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,* 101 FERC 61,221 (2002), *order on reh'g,* 103 FERC ¶ 61,035 (2003); *New England Power Pool,* 96 FERC ¶ 61,261 (2001); *ISO New England, Inc.,* 105 FERC ¶ 61,397 (2003); *New York Independent System Operator,* 86 FERC ¶ 61,062 (1999); *PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 112 FERC 61,236 (2005), *order approving settlement,* 115 FERC ¶ 61,249 (2006). 122 The CAISO, PJM, and ISO-NE, in contrast, use stated rates for their grid administration and market services charges. 123 After-the-fact review is considered insufficient. Even if the Commission were to disallow an expenditure after the fact as not used and useful or otherwise imprudently incurred, an RTO or ISO has no profits to be reduced by the amount of any disallowed costs. Many market participants assert that there is no good remedy for these RTOs and ISOs once imprudent costs are incurred. RTO and ISO customers are among the first to tell the Commission that, in practice, once costs are incurred by a not-for-profit RTO or ISO with a formula rate, these costs must be passed through to its customers. 163. The Commission requests comment on possible approaches to address these concerns. For example, should each RTO and ISO: • Review its cost accountability processes with its customers and other stakeholders and consider how to improve them? • Present budget information to customers with adequate detail, transparency, and cost support? For example, an RTO or ISO with a formula rate could develop its budget presentation to stakeholders using the format required for a filing with the Commission to change a previously-filed stated rate. This would provide stakeholders with clear information about the proposed expenditures, its effect on rates, and how the proposed budget relates to recent budgets. • Provide its customers a timely opportunity to review budget proposals, ask budget questions, and comment before major expenditures are finally decided? • Submit to the Commission as an informational filing the budget materials provided to stakeholders for review? VII. Additional Questions 164. It is our preliminary view that that the Commission should institute a proceeding under section 206 of the FPA 124 to reform RTO and ISO tariffs to address certain issues discussed above. The Commission may conduct this process either through a notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act 125 or an adjudicative process. 124 16 U.S.C. 824e (2000). 125 5 U.S.C. 553 (2000). 165. The Commission requests comment on which of these procedures is likely to produce the most effective reforms, and on the appropriate time frame in which to conduct the proceedings. The Commission also seeks input as to the length of time that might be necessary for RTOs and ISOs to implement any reforms that result from this process. Specifically, the Commission requests input as to how much time—including time for stakeholder processes—might be needed for technical development of compliance filings. VIII. Comment Procedures 166. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on these matters and any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due August 16, 2007. Comments must refer to Docket No. AD07-7-000 and must include the commenter's name, the organization he or she represents, if applicable, and his or her address. 167. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.ferc.gov.* The Commission accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with supporting information in certain other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. 168. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426. 169. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters. IX. Document Availability 170. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the **Federal Register** , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through FERC's Home Page ( *http://www.ferc.gov.* and in FERC's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 171. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available in its eLibrary. The full text of this document is available in the eLibrary both in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field. 172. User assistance is available for eLibrary and FERC's Web site during normal business hours from our Help line at

(202)502-8222 or the Public Reference Room at *public.reference@ferc.gov.* By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Kelly concurring in part and dissenting in part with a separate statement attached. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. KELLY, Commissioner, *concurring in part and dissenting in part:* I generally support the efforts of this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) in setting forth proposals and seeking comment on improvements to the operation of organized wholesale electric markets. I am writing separately to express my views on certain of the proposals related to strengthening market monitoring, improving demand response and promoting RTO/ISO responsiveness. First, I would have added certain proposals to the ANOPR to strengthen market monitoring. For reasons I have previously explained, 126 I would have proposed requiring RTOs/ISOs to file tariff provisions to allow them to take enforcement action with respect to objectively identifiable behavior that does not subject the seller to sanctions or consequences other than those expressly approved by the Commission and set forth in the tariff, and with the right of appeal to the Commission, consistent with the Policy Statement on Market Monitoring Units. 127 In addition, the ANOPR states that the Commission does not intend to share with the MMU information about suspected tariff and rule violations referred by the MMU to the Commission. I believe the Commission should generally provide information to the MMUs on the referrals they have made to the Commission, subject to appropriate confidentiality restrictions. Such feedback could be structured so as to provide responsible disclosure of information while preserving confidentiality. In addition, I would have proposed requiring the MMU to make recommendations related to its reports on RTO/ISO performance. Therefore, I concur in part on the ANOPR. 126 *See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,* 116 FERC ¶ 61,038, *order on reh'g,* 117 FERC ¶ 61,263 (2006). 127 *See* 111 FERC ¶ 61,267

(2005)at P 5. Second, I disagree with two of the proposals being made in the ANOPR. One proposal involves facilitating greater participation of demand response in organized markets by modifying market power mitigation rules in organized markets, such as raising the energy bid caps and market-wide caps in an emergency situation. Before the Commission considers whether to pursue such market rule modifications, I think it is important to address other barriers that may significantly restrict demand response participation. For example, the FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment concluded that the technologies needed to support significant deployment of demand resources, such as advanced metering, have little market penetration. 128 Without the necessary technology already in place that would allow demand resources to respond to price signals in wholesale or retail markets, it is unclear how quickly they could develop the ability to respond after energy bid caps or market-wide caps are raised or eliminated. In other words, the technology and associated demand response capability must be in place before we consider raising or eliminating these price caps. Otherwise these higher energy prices may not elicit any demand reduction in a fashion capable of disciplining those prices and keeping them just and reasonable. In addition, rather than asking questions in this ANOPR on how to value demand response, I think the Commission should have proposed a compensation method and postponed consideration of modifying market power mitigation rules until after the valuation issue had been addressed. 128 *FERC Staff Demand Response Assessment,* Docket No. AD06-2-000, at page xii. Third, although I recognize that some stakeholder groups have raised concerns about the responsiveness of the RTO/ISO, I disagree with the ANOPR's proposal to promote responsiveness by establishing a hybrid RTO/ISO board of directors composed of both independent members and non-independent stakeholder members. Under this proposal, each member would have a seat on the board and participate fully in board decisions with an equal vote. I think it would be inadvisable and difficult to implement such a proposal. Order Nos. 888 and 2000 require that an ISO or RTO be independent from market participants so that they can provide regional transmission and energy market services on a non-discriminatory basis. A fundamental principle for ISOs, as set forth in Order No. 888, is that the ISO should be independent of any individual market participant or any one class of participants (e.g., transmission owners or end-users). 129 Similarly, Order No. 2000 emphasized that independence is the bedrock principle on which the ISOs and RTOs must be built and stressed that an RTO “needs to be independent in both reality and perception.” 130 I believe that establishing a hybrid board would jeopardize the fundamental principle of independence upon which ISOs and RTOs are based. 129 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 31,730-31. 130 Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089 at 31,061. Moreover, although the ANOPR states that stakeholder members would be directed not to serve their own interests inappropriately, it is not clear to me how one would distinguish between “inappropriate” advocacy for one's interests, and perfectly reasonable advocacy for one's interests. Additionally, a hybrid board composed of independent and non-independent board members could needlessly complicate the board dynamic and make cooperative decision-making more difficult and time consuming. Currently, the independent board coupled with the stakeholder process, can be viewed as similar to the judicial model of governance. The stakeholders are like adversaries in a judicial proceeding arguing their cases to a disinterested judge, the independent board, which is capable of balancing the various equities in reaching a timely decision that is fair to all. A stakeholder board, even a hybrid one, would be more akin to the legislative model with no overarching independent judge making the final calls. Such a model requires constant negotiation and can often lead to stalemate or decisions that address only the lowest common denominator rather than the ideal approach. While that model is certainly appropriate in many situations, I do not believe it is workable for the board of an RTO or ISO given the many important and time-critical issues they deal with. Furthermore, most investor owned utilities, with whom RTOs and ISOs share many features, do not appear to follow the legislative model of governance and it is not clear to me why the RTOs and ISOs should be treated differently. If the Commission is to consider providing stakeholders with some form of direct board access, I think that the board advisory committee proposed in this ANOPR would more effectively serve this purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, I concur in part and dissent in part on this ANOPR. Suedeen G. Kelly [FR Doc. E7-12550 Filed 6-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P 72 126 Monday, July 2, 2007 Notices Part VI Department of Housing and Urban Development Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the First Quarter of Calendar Year 2007; Notice DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5148-N-01] Notice of Regulatory Waiver Requests Granted for the First Quarter of Calendar Year 2007 AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly **Federal Register** notices of all regulatory waivers that HUD has approved. Each notice covers the quarterly period since the previous **Federal Register** notice. The purpose of this notice is to comply with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act. This notice contains a list of regulatory waivers granted by HUD during the period beginning on January 1, 2007 and ending on March 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information about this notice, contact Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276,Washington, DC 20410-0500, telephone

(202)708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing- or speech- impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at

(800)877-8339. For information concerning a particular waiver that was granted and for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waivers that have been granted in the first quarter of calendar year 2007. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that: 1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver; 2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived; 3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the **Federal Register** . These notices (each covering the period since the most recent previous notification) shall: a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved; b. Describe the nature of the provision waived and the designation of the provision; c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request; d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and e. State how additional information about a particular waiver may be obtained. Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice. This notice follows procedures provided in HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). In accordance with those procedures and with the requirements of section 106 of the HUD Reform Act, waivers of regulations are granted by the Assistant Secretary with jurisdiction over the regulations for which a waiver was requested. In those cases in which a General Deputy Assistant Secretary granted the waiver, the General Deputy Assistant Secretary was serving in the absence of the Assistant Secretary in accordance with the office's Order of Succession. This notice covers waivers of regulations granted by HUD from January 1, 2007, through March 31, 2007. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the Office of Housing, and the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the regulatory section of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)that is being waived. For example, a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would be listed before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570. Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the grant of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in 24 CFR and that is being waived. For example, a waiver of both 58.73 and 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under 58.73. Waiver of regulations that involve the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated regulatory waiver. Should HUD receive additional information about waivers granted during the period covered by this report (the first quarter of calendar year 2007) before the next report is published (the second quarter of calendar year 2007), HUD will include any additional waivers granted for the first quarter in the next report. Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice. Dated: June 27, 2007. Robert M. Couch, General Counsel. Appendix—Listing of Waivers of Regulatory Requirements Granted by Offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2007 **Note to Reader:** More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of regulatory waivers granted. The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order: I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development. II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing. III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing. I. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 58.22(a). *Project/Activity:* New Visions Center, Council Bluffs, Iowa. New Visions Center includes a transitional housing facility with 26 one-bedroom units, a 40 bed emergency shelter for men, a dining hall/community room, and administrative and support staff offices. HUD funding for the project includes HOME, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), and Supportive Housing Program

(SHP)funds. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 58.22(a) prohibits recipients and any participant in the development process, including public or private nonprofit or for-profit entities or any of their contractors, from committing or expending HUD and non-HUD funds until HUD has approved the recipient's Request for Release of Funds

(RROF)and related certification if the activity or project would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. After application for SHP funds and after application to the state for HOME funds, a partner in the development process, committed non-HUD funds to acquire the property prior to the city and state obtaining an approved RROF. *Granted By:* Pamela Patenaude, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. *Date Granted:* March 12, 2007. *Reason Waived:* HUD granted the waiver for the following reasons:

(1)Extensive efforts were undertaken by Council Bluffs Housing for the Homeless and the City of Council Bluffs to locate and identify this particular site for the project;

(2)the project will further the purpose of the HOME and Supportive Housing Programs by providing transitional housing and services for the homeless;

(3)based on the environmental assessment and the site visit conducted by HUD staff, HUD concludes that granting a wavier will not result in an adverse environmental impact, nor is any foreseen to occur; and

(4)the regulatory violation occurred because of a good-faith mistake. *Contact:* Danielle Schopp, Office of Environment and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7250, Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone

(202)708-1201. • Regulation: 24 CFR 92.2. *Project/Activity:* The State of Mississippi requested a waiver of the definition of “homeownership” at 24 CFR 92.2 of the HOME regulations. The State of Mississippi requested this waiver to facilitate its efforts to assist the Town of Flora, which applied for a homeowner rehabilitation grant to assist property owners whose residences were constructed on school trust land, also known as Sixteenth Section land. *Nature of Requirement:* The HOME regulations define “homeownership” as ownership in “fee simple title or a 99-year leasehold interest in a one- to four- unit dwelling or in a condominium unit, or equivalent form of ownership approved by HUD.” The Town of Flora applied to the State of Mississippi for HOME funds to rehabilitate owner-occupied units that are located on what is known as Sixteenth Section land and have 40-year land leases. *Granted By:* Pamela H. Patenaude, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. *Date Granted:* January 4, 2007. *Reasons Waived:* Mississippi State law precludes these homeowners from obtaining 99-year leasehold interests in the land on which their units are located. Adherence to the HOME definition of homeownership would create a hardship by eliminating the possibility of receiving HOME assistance to rehabilitate their homes. The waiver was therefore granted. *Contact:* Virginia Sardone, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7158, Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone

(202)708-2470. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6). *Project/Activity:* The State of South Dakota requested a waiver of 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6) to facilitate its efforts to ensure that a HOME project, which had to be vacated due to serious mold problem, will continue to provide affordable housing units for low-income individuals. *Nature of Requirement:* The HOME regulations at 24 CFR 92.214(a)(6) prohibit participating jurisdictions from investing additional HOME funds in a project previously assisted with HOME funds, except during the first year after project completion. The State of South Dakota requested this waiver to facilitate its efforts to ensure that a HOME project, which had to be vacated due to serious mold problem, would continue to provide affordable housing units for low-income individuals. *Granted By:* Pamela H. Patenaude, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. *Date Granted:* January 4, 2007. *Reasons Waived:* Without the investment of additional HOME funds to make this project habitable, the original HOME investment of $863,586 would be lost as would the opportunity to maintain the project as affordable housing. *Contact:* Virginia Sardone, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7158, Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone

(202)708-2470. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 92.251(a)(1). *Project/Activity:* The City of Oklahoma City requested a waiver to help facilitate its efforts to close a HOME-assisted homeowner rehabilitation project. The City of Oklahoma City asked for a waiver of the HOME property standards as stated in 24 CFR 92.251(a)(1) of the HOME regulations. *Nature of Requirement:* The HOME regulations at 24 CFR 92.2519(a)(1) state that housing constructed or rehabilitated with HOME funds must meet all applicable codes, rehabilitation standards, ordinances, and zoning ordinances at the time of project completion. This requirement ensures that HOME-assisted units are decent, safe and sanitary. *Granted By:* Pamela H. Patenaude, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. *Date Granted:* January 4, 2007. *Reasons Waived:* The City of Oklahoma City had been attempting to complete the rehabilitation of a low-income homeowner's unit for three years. The homeowner, who suffers from mental illness, would not permit the City to complete the rehabilitation of her home due to a dispute with the contractor. The City was diligent in its efforts to rectify the situation but the homeowner decided to sell the home, making it impossible for the City to further pursue a resolution. This waiver eliminated the need for the City to repay all of the HOME program funds expended for the partial rehabilitation of this property. *Contact:* Virginia Sardone, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7158, Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone

(202)708-2470. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C). *Project/Activity:* The City of New Orleans, LA requested a waiver of its Fiscal Year

(FY)2002 HOME Program expenditure requirement to facilitate its continued recovery from the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The City is located within a declared disaster area pursuant to Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The City requested this waiver in addition to the waivers granted by HUD on September 14, 2005 (Hurricane Katrina) and October 4, 2005 (Hurricane Rita) for the designated disaster areas. *Nature of Requirement:* HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C) require that a participating jurisdiction

(PJ)expend its annual allocation of HOME funds within five years after HUD notifies the PJ that HUD has executed the jurisdiction's HOME Investment Partnership Agreement. *Granted By:* Pamela H. Patenaude, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. *Date Granted:* March 5, 2007. *Reasons Waived:* This waiver was granted to facilitate the continued recovery of the City of New Orleans from the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita by waiving the FY 2002 HOME expenditure requirement. This waiver helped to ensure that needed HOME funds are not deobligated and that the City had sufficient flexibility and time to assess, redesign, and implement its housing programs and delivery systems. *Contact:* Virginia Sardone, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7158, Washington, DC 20410-7000, telephone

(202)708-2470. • *Regulations/Statute:* 24 CFR 92.500(d)(1)(C). *Project/Activity:* The Gulfport Consortium requested a waiver to facilitate its recovery from the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. The Consortium is located within a declared disaster area pursuant to Title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 92.500(d)(1)(C) requires that a participating jurisdiction expend its annual allocation of HOME funds within five years after HUD notifies the PJ that HUD has executed the jurisdiction's HOME Investment Partnership Agreement. *Granted By:* Pamela H. Patenaude, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. *Date Granted:* March 30, 2007. *Reasons Waived:* This waiver will facilitate the recovery of the Gulfport Consortium from the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. The waiver will also ensure that needed HOME funds are not deobligated, providing the Consortium with flexibility to reassess previously approved housing projects and implement other housing activities to meet the immediate needs of the affected population. *Contact:* Virginia Sardone, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7158, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-2470. II. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Housing—Federal Housing Administration

(FHA)For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 200.217(a)(5). *Project/Activity:* Moore Medical Center, Moore, OK, FHA Project 117-13003. *Nature of Requirement:* A party seeking approval of a transfer of physical assets must apply for previous participation clearance electronically. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 8, 2007. *Reason Waived:* For the benefit of HUD, it was necessary to secure previous participation clearance in paper form rather than electronically in order to meet bankruptcy court mandated auction, approval, and announcement deadlines. Moore Medical Center declared bankruptcy in October, 2006 and the bankruptcy court allowed bids on the hospital from approximately January 16, 2007 until February 25, 2007. The winning bidder was approved by the court on February 26, 2007 and closing on the sale took place on February 28, 2007. HUD had to be prepared for the purchaser (identity not known until February 26, 2007) to assume the owner's obligations under the HUD-insured mortgage and immediately provide a transfer of physical assets to the new owner, both of which required previous participation clearance pursuant to procedures contained in 24 CFR part 200, subpart H. The electronic previous participation certificate process is currently not designed to provide for immediate clearance of an applicant's filing. The waiver allowed paper previous participation certificates to be collected from each serious bidder as soon as they placed a bid and the granting of previous participation clearance within 48 hours of submission. *Contact:* Roger E. Miller, Office of Insured Health Care Facilities, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 9224, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)402-2004. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 401.461. *Project/Activity:* The following project listed below requested a waiver to the simple interest requirement on the second mortgage to allow compound interest at the applicable federal rate. FHA No. Project State 01335127 Park Drive Manor II Apartments NY *Nature of Requirement:* Section 401.461 of HUD's regulations requires that the second mortgages have an interest rate not more than the applicable federal rate. Section 401.461(b)(1) states that interest will accrue but not be compounded. The intent of simple interest instead of compound interest is to limit the size of the second mortgage accruals to increase the likelihood of long-term financial and physical integrity. *Contact:* Frank L. Davis, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 26, 2007. *Reason Waived:* This regulation may be construed as a form of federal subsidy, thereby creating a loss of tax credit equity, which may adversely affect the ability to close the restructuring plan and could cause the loss or deterioration of these affordable housing projects. Therefore, compound interest was determined necessary for the owner to obtain low income housing tax credits under favorable terms and in order to maximize the savings to the federal government. *Granted By:* John E. Hall, Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6222, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)402-2342. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 401.461. *Project/Activity:* The following projects listed below requested a waiver to the simple interest requirement on the second mortgage to allow compound interest at the applicable federal rate. FHA No. Project State 12735339 Montesano Harbor Annex Apartments WA *Nature of Requirement:* Section 401.461 of HUD's regulations requires that the second mortgages have an interest rate not more than the applicable federal rate. Section 401.461(b)(1) states that interest will accrue but not be compounded. The intent of simple interest instead of compound interest is to limit the size of the second mortgage accruals to increase the likelihood of long-term financial and physical integrity. *Granted By:* Frank L. Davis, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 12, 2007. *Reason Waived:* This regulation may be construed as a form of federal subsidy, thereby creating a loss of tax credit equity, which may adversely affect the ability to close the restructuring plan and could cause the loss or deterioration of these affordable housing projects. Therefore, compound interest was determined necessary for the owner to obtain low income housing tax credits under favorable terms and in order to maximize the savings to the federal government. *Contact:* John E. Hall, Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6222, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)402-2342. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 401.461. *Project/Activity:* The following projects listed below requested a waiver to the simple interest requirement on the second mortgage to allow compound interest at the applicable federal rate. FHA No. Project State 11735033 Columbia Square Apartments OK 10535062 Jefferson Park Apartment UT *Nature of Requirement:* Section 401.461 of HUD's regulations requires that the second mortgages have an interest rate not more than the applicable federal rate. Section 401.461(b)(1) states that interest will accrue but not be compounded. The intent of simple interest instead of compound interest is to limit the size of the second mortgage accruals to increase the likelihood of long-term financial and physical integrity. *Granted By:* Frank L. Davis, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing-Deputy Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 30, 2007. *Reason Waived:* This regulation may be construed as a form of federal subsidy, thereby creating a loss of tax credit equity, which may adversely affect the ability to close the restructuring plan and could cause the loss or deterioration of these affordable housing projects. Therefore, compound interest was determined necessary for the owner to obtain low income housing tax credits under favorable terms and in order to maximize the savings to the federal government. *Contact:* John E. Hall, Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6222, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)402-2342. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* James River Apartments, Richmond, VA, Project Number: 051-HD121/VA36-Q031-003. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 3, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Kleeman Village, Clinton, IL, Project Number: 072-HD144/IL06-Q041-008. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 5, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Sr. Louise DeMaillac Manor, Staten Island, NY, Project Number: 012-HD107/NY36-Q011-004. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amountof the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted by:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 5, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Woonsocket Neighborhood Development Corporation, North Smithfield, RI, Project Number: 016-EE046/RI43-S021-003. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 5, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* UCP Rhode Island, Incorporation, West Warwick, RI, Project Number: 016-HD045/RI43-Q031-004. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 5, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Avondale Haciendas, Avondale, AZ, Project Number: 123-EE095/AZ20-S041-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 11, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* VOA Sandusky, Sandusky, OH, Project Number: 042-HD110/OH12-Q021-008. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 11, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* The Commons Apartments, Sevierville, TN, Project Number: 087-EE057/TN37-S051-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 25, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* TBD-811, Crossville, TN, Project Number: 087-HD049/TN37-Q061-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* Febuary 1, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Park Place Apartments, Cleveland, TN, Project Number: 087-EE058/TN37-S051-002. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amountof the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 1, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Mace Apartments, Jamestown, TN, Project Number: 087-HD048/TN37-Q051-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 5, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Renaissance Court, Wilsonville, OR, Project Number: 126-HD039/OR16-Q041-001 *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 6, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* DGN Towers II, Incorporated, Pembroke Pines, FL, Project Number: 066-EE108/FL29-S051-006. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 7, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Campbellsville Group Home, Campbellsville, KY, Project Number: 083-HD091/KY36-Q051-002. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 7, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and the cost appears reasonable as there are no other four unit group homes in the area to compare costs, and the Sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* B'nai B'rith Apartments at Deerfield Beach III, Deerfield Beach, FL, Project Number: 066EE102/FL29-S041-005 *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 7, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Bunker Hill Court Home, Independence, KY, Project Number: 083-HD093/KY36-Q051-004 *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amountof the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 16, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Bay Pointe Apartments, Louisa, KY, Project Number: 083-EE095/KY36-S051-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 26, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Cody Road VOA Housing, Mobile, AL, Project Number: 062-HD060/AL09-Q051-004. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 29, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Abilities at Eagles Nest, Lakeland, FL, Project Number: 067-HD096/FL29-Q041-003. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 29, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* Booth Manor II Apartments, Philadelphia, PA, Project Number: 034-EE142/PA26-S051-002. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 30, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, and the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.100(d). *Project/Activity:* NCR of Alief II, Houston, TX, Project Number: 0114-EE120/TX24-S041-008. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.100(d) prohibits amendment of the amount of the approved capital advance funds prior to initial closing. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 30, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The project was economically designed and comparable in cost to similar projects in the area, the sponsor/owner exhausted all efforts to obtain additional funding from other sources and the additional cost is due to increased construction costs. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Woodside Village, Toledo, OH, Project Number: 042-HD112/OH12-Q031-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 5, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* SHDC No. 12, Kailua-Kona, HI, Project Number: 140-HD030/HI10-Q041-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 5, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to obtain a building permit and to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Tikigaqmiut Senior Housing, Point Hope, AK, Project Number: 176-EE029/AK06-S021-004; Anaiyak Senior Housing, Anaktuvuk Pass, AK, Project Number: 176-EE030/AK06-S021-005; Oglonikgum Uttuganaknich Senior Housing, Wainwright, AK, Project Number: 176-EE031/AK06-S021-006; Kaktovik Senior Housing, Kaktovik, AK, Project Number: 176-EE032/AK06-S021-007; Utuqqanaaqagvik Senior Housing, Nuiqsut, AK, Project Number: 176-EE033/AK06-S021-008. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 5, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Vista California Supportive Housing, Vista, CA, Project Number: 129-HD030/CA33-Q041-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 9, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Desert Willow, Ridgecrest, CA, Project Number: 122-HD162/CA16-Q041-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 9, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner experienced delays due to the lengthy plan check process by city and county officials. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Fox Creek II, Akron, OH, Project Number: 042-HD116/OH12-Q031-005 and Fox Creek I, Springfield Township, OH, Project Number: 042-HD117/OH12-Q031-006. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 9, 2007. *Reason Waived:* Additional time is needed to issue the firm commitment and for the project to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* National Church Residence of Tucson, Tucson, AZ, Project Number: 123-EE085/AZ20-S021-003. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 9, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to achieve an intial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* AHEPA 302 Apartments, San Bernardino, CA, Project Number: 143-EE056/CA43-S041-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 9, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to implement design changes required by the local government as well as to achieve initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* NCR of Sterling Heights II, Detroit, MI, Project Number: 044-EE092/MI28-S041-002. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 11, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Gulfport Manor, Gulfport, MS, Project Number: 065-EE031/MS26-S001-002. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 11, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Soundview Senior Residence, Bronx, NY, Project Number: 012-EE318/NY36-S011-012. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 11, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time for the new contractor to prepare and submit closing documents. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* TBD, Burlington, WI, Project Number: 075-HD088/WI39-Q041-007. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 12, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time in order to obtain approval for the extension of a road, as well as water and sewer into the site. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Assaley Place, Charleston, WV, Project Number: 045-HD039/WV15-Q041-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 17, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Jennings Senior Housing, Santa Rosa, CA, Project Number: 121-EE178/CA39-S041-009. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 6, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Forest Hills Senior Apartments, Forest Hills, PA, Project Number: 033-EE122/PA28-S041-004. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* Februay 15, 2007. *Reason Waived:* Additional time was needed for the firm commitment to be issued and for the project to be initially closed. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Northwest Senior Housing, Winsted, CT, Project Number: 017-EE088/CT26-S041-005. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 26, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to secure secondary financing and to achieve an initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Clam Bayou Apartments, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL, Project Number: 067-HD094/FL29-Q041-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 28, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to resolve an easement issue and for the project to achieve initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* Greater Las Vegas Supportive Housing, Las Vegas, NV, Project Number: 125-HD072/NV25-Q041-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 28, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to finalize the closing documents and for the project to be initially closed. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.165. *Project/Activity:* National Church Residences, Sterling Heights, MI, Project Number: 044-EE092/MI28-S041-002. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.165 provides that the duration of the fund reservation of the capital advance is 18 months from the date of issuance with limited exceptions up to 24 months, as approved by HUD on a case-by-case basis. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* March 28, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner needed additional time to comply with numerous City of Sterling Heights engineering requirements, for the firm commitment to be issued, and for the project to be initially closed. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.205. *Project/Activity:* Greenfield Commons, Fairfield, CT, Project Number: 017-EE092/CT26-S051-002. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.205 requires Section 202 and Section 811 project owners to have tax exemption status under section 501(c)(3) or (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Granted by: Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* January 3, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The sponsor/owner had requested the section 501(c)(3) tax exemption but had not received it in time for the initial closing. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 891.205. *Project/Activity:* Immanuel Trinity Courtyard II, Papillion, NE, Project Number: 103-EE037/NE26-S061-001. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 891.205 requires Section 202 and Section 811 project owners to be single-purpose corporations. *Granted By:* Brian D. Montgomery, Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner. *Date Granted:* February 7, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The units will be added to Immanuel Trinity Courtyard I, an existing project. The owner of Immanuel Trinity Courtyard I will own both projects resulting in cost savings. *Contact:* Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6134, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-3000. III. Regulatory Waivers Granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing For further information about the following regulatory waivers, please see the name of the contact person that immediately follows the description of the waiver granted. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 5.801. *Project/Activity:* Union Township Housing Authority (NJ109), Union, NJ. *Nature of Requirement:* The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted no later than nine months after the housing authority's

(HA)fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 14, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver of the audited financial reporting requirements under the Section 8 Program for FYE March 31, 2006, for the following reasons:

(1)The HA is under the single audit requirements of the Office of Management and Budget A-133 and does not conduct a separate audit;

(2)the realignment of the HA's FYE from March 31 to December 31 eliminates the problem of the single audit as of FYE December 31, 2006, and

(3)the independent auditor does not have a unique independent public accountant identifier number nor a procedure in place to insure timely submission to Financial Assessment Subsystem (FASS). The HA was granted a waiver because the circumstances that prevented the HA from submitting the audited financial data were beyond the HA's control. However, with the FYE change, the HA is required to submit its unaudited and audited financial data as of FYE December 31, 2006, and in accordance with HUD's Uniform Financial Standards Rule

(UFSR)(24 CFR Part 5). *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, Integrated Assessment Subsystem (NASS), Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.20. *Project/Activity:* City of East St. Louis Housing Authority (IL001), East St. Louis, IL. *Nature of Requirement:* The objective of this regulation is to determine whether a housing authority

(HA)is meeting the standard of decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. The Real Estate Assessment Center

(REAC)provides for an independent physical inspection of a HA's property or properties that includes a statistically valid sample of the units. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* January 26, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver of the physical inspections and Physical Assessment Subsystem

(PASS)indicator score for fiscal year ending

(FYE)March 31, 2006, because of major storm damage to HA's properties in July 2006. Five separate tornadoes caused significant damage to the community that resulted in loss of power, flooded streets, downed trees, etc. The waiver grants a waiver of and cancellation of the PASS inspections for FYE March 31, 2006. Physical inspections will resume for the FYE March 31, 2007, assessment cycle. The HA also received a waiver of the PASS Indicator score for that year since no physical inspections were conducted. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.20. *Project/Activity:* City of Dumas Housing Authority (AR043), Dumas, AR. *Nature of Requirement:* The objective of this regulation is to determine whether a housing authority

(HA)is meeting the standard of decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. The Real Estate Assessment Center

(REAC)provides for an independent physical inspection of a HA's property or properties that includes a statistically valid sample of the units. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* March 28, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver of the physical inspections for fiscal year ending

(FYE)December 31, 2006, because of tornado damage to its properties. The waiver grants a cancellation of the PASS inspections for FYE December 31, 2006. Physical inspections will resume for the FYE December 31, 2007, assessment cycle. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.20. *Project/Activity:* District of Columbia Housing Authority (DC001), Washington, DC. *Nature of Requirement:* The objective of this regulation is to determine whether a housing authority

(HA)is meeting the standard of decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. The Real Estate Assessment Center

(REAC)provides for an independent physical inspection of a HA's property or properties that includes a statistically valid sample of the units. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* March 28, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver of the physical inspections under Physical Assessment Subsystem

(PASS)of the Public Housing Assessment Subsystem

(PHAS)for fiscal year ending

(FYE)September 30, 2006. The waiver grants a cancellation of the PASS inspections for FYE September 30, 2006, because 31 of the HA's 41 developments are in the midst of a comprehensive rehabilitation project that will ensure 20 year viability. HUD confirmed that the contracts are in place and the rehabilitation efforts are underway. Physical inspections will resume for the FYE September 30, 2007, assessment cycle. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.33 *Project/Activity:* City of Anacortes Housing Authority (WA010), Anacortes, WA. *Nature of Requirement:* The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted no later than nine months after the housing authority's

(HA)fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* March 28, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver for the removal of the Late Presumptive Failure

(LPF)score of zero under the audited Financial Assessment Subsystem

(FASS)indicator of the Public Housing Assessment System

(PHAS)for FYE March 31, 2006. The HA's audited financial submission was not received by the due date because the rejection notices from the Real Estate Assessment Center

(REAC)and the Seattle Field Office were inadvertently forwarded to the agency's SPAM filter. Because the HA, was under the Small PHA Deregulation in 2006, and is not required to have a PHAS score for FYE March 31, 2006, the waiver granted the removal of the LPF score of zero, and allows the HA to resubmit a corrected audited financial submission. In accordance with 24 CFR 902.9, REAC will assess and score the performance of a PHA with less than 250 public housing units every other PHA fiscal year, unless the small PHA

(a)elects to have its performance assessed on an annual basis, or

(b)is designated as troubled. The City of Anacortes has an inventory of 111 low-rent public housing units and is therefore considered a small PHA. The PHA was designated a high performer in FY 2005, and because the PHAS is assessed every other year, it is not required to have a PHAS score in FY2006. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.33. *Project/Activity:* Troy Housing Authority (NY012), Troy, NY. *Nature of Requirement:* The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted no later than nine months after the housing authority's

(HA)fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* January 12, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver for the removal of the Late Presumptive Failure

(LPF)score of zero for the audited Financial Assessment Subsystem

(FASS)indicator for FYE December 30, 2005, whose submission due date was September 30, 2006. The HA lost its in-charge auditor and also its Chief Financial Officer, who failed to complete a significant number of items identified by the auditors during their on-site field work. The waiver granted the removal of the LPF and resubmission of the audited financial data within 15 days of receipt of the waiver approval letter, and the issuance of a new Public Housing Assessment System

(PHAS)score. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100 Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.33. • *Project/Activity:* Meade County Housing and Redevelopment Commission (SD047), Sturgis, SD. *Nature of Requirement:* The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted no later than nine months after the housing authority's

(LPF)score of zero under the audited Financial Assessment Subsystem

(FASS)indicator. The audit was completed on time but the auditor was unable to complete the submission because of a death in her immediate family on the submission due date. The waiver granted the removal of the LPF score of zero and allows the HA to submit its audited financial data. Because the HA is designated as a Small PHA Deregulation for FY 2006, no Public Housing Assessment System

(PHAS)score will be generated. In accordance with 24 CFR 902.9, REAC will assess and score the performance of a PHA with less than 250 public housing units every other PHA fiscal year, unless the small PHA

(a)elects to have its performance assessed on an annual basis, or

(b)is designated as troubled. The Meade County Housing and Redevelopment Commission is a small PHA, has an inventory of 80 low-rent public housing units and is therefore considered a small PHA. The PHA was designated a high performer in FY 2005, and because the PHAS is assessed every other year, it is not required to have a PHAS score in FY2006. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.33. • *Project/Activity:* Benton Public Housing Authority (AR175), Benton, AR. • *Nature of Requirement:* The regulation establishes certain reporting compliance dates. The audited financial statements are required to be submitted no later than nine months after the housing authority's

(HA)fiscal year end (FYE), in accordance with the Single Audit Act and OMB Circular A-133. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* March 14, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver for the removal of the Late Presumptive Failure

(LPF)score of zero under the audited Financial Assessment Subsystem

(FASS)indicator for FYE March 31, 2006. The HA's audit submission was not received by the due date because the last step of the three-step process was not performed that would have transmitted the data to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC). The waiver grants removal of the LPF score of zero, and allows the HA to submit its audited financial data. Because the HA is designated as a Small PHA Deregulation for FY 2006, no Public Housing Assessment System

(PHAS)score will be generated. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.40. *Project/Activity:* Housing Authority of the County of Cass, Illinois (IL102), Beardstown, IL. *Nature of Requirement:* The objective of the Management Operations Indicator, under the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS), is to measure certain key management operations and responsibilities of a housing authority

(HA)for the purpose of assessing the HA's management operations capabilities. The regulation requires a HA to submit electronically a certification of its performance under each of the management operations sub-indicators within two months after the HA's fiscal year end (FYE). *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 14, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver of the Late Presumptive Failure

(LPF)score of zero under Management Operations Indicator for FYE March 31, 2006 because the Executive Director

(ED)passed away and no other HA staff was knowledgeable with the requirements under PHAS. A new ED was hired on June 15, 2006, but was unaware that the management operations certification had not been submitted as required. The waiver grants the HA an opportunity to submit the management operations certification, and the issuance of a new PHAS score. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 902.69(a)(2). • *Project/Activity:* Marble Falls Housing Authority (TX263), Marble Falls, TX. • *Nature of Requirement:* The regulation establishes that a PHA may petition for the removal of troubled designation. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* January 11, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HA requested a waiver that would change the HA's Public Housing Assessment System

(PHAS)designation from Substandard Financial to Standard Performer for fiscal year end

(FYE)September 30, 2005. In 2001, the HA made a management decision to construct a community center and to pursue additional opportunities to enhance affordable housing within the community. This action created a temporary liquidity issue for the HA that adversely affected its reserves. Because the HA has taken steps to eliminate this issue by transferring all non-HUD funded assets to a newly created Texas Housing Foundation, and made a commitment that it will no longer engage in community development initiatives, the HA's designation was changed from Substandard Financial to Standard Performer. No score adjustment was made. *Contact:* Myra E. Newbill, Acting Program Manager, NASS, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8988. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B). *Project/Activity:* Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia Ashley Station Phase II HOPE VI Project Number: GA06URD004I102. *Nature of Requirement:* The provision requires that if the partner and/or owner entity (or any other entity with an identity of interest with such parties) wants to serve as a general contractor for the project or development, it may award itself the construction contract only if it can demonstrate to HUD's satisfaction that its bid is the lowest submitted in response to a public request for bids. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 20, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia

(HACG)procured Integral Group, LLC

(TIG)as the developer to revitalize the former Peabody Apartments site in Columbus, Georgia through a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP). IBG Construction Services, LLC, an affiliate of TIG, will serve as a general contractor for the development of Ashley Station Phase II. The basis for justifying the waiver was because IBG Construction Services, LLC could provide the most efficient means of accomplishing the construction. IBG Construction Services, LLC has knowledge of Low Income Housing Tax Credit and HOPE VI compliance issues, and experience with coordinating/managing infrastructure in support of on-site development. Its direct control of construction activities will ensure milestone completions and sensitivity to overall development requirements. In addition, HACG submitted an independent cost estimate by Diane R. Durand, a Construction/Cost Analyst with Architectural Associates. Architectural Associates compared the cost of this project with those of other projects and analyzed each line item, comparing the costs to projects in its data bank and against historical cost data. Architectural Associates cost estimate totaled $12,883,339 for construction, including the architectural design, contract administration and mortgagor's other fees. IBG Construction Services, LLC's total estimate for all improvements mentioned totaled $12,807,702. HUD also performed a fee analysis, confirming that all of the construction fees are either at or below HUD's Cost Control and Safe Harbor Standards issued on April 9, 2003. As IBG Construction Services, LLC cost was below that of the independent cost estimates, HUD's condition is satisfied. *Contact:* Dominique Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)401-8812. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B). *Project/Activity:* San Antonio Housing Authority, San Juan Apartments Mixed Finance Project Number: TX006-141. *Nature of Requirement:* The provision requires that if the partner and/or owner entity (or any other entity with an identity of interest with such parties) wants to serve as a general contractor for the project or development, it may award itself the construction contract only if it can demonstrate to HUD's satisfaction that its bid is the lowest submitted in response to a public request for bids. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 27, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The San Antonio Housing Authority

(SAHA)procured NRP Group, LLC as the developer for the San Juan Apartments site through a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP). NRP Contractors, LLC, an affiliate of the developer will serve as the co-general contractor while San Antonio Housing Facility Corporation (the Facility Corporation), an instrumentality of the housing authority will serve as the general contractor as a pass-through entity for the purpose of receiving certain sales tax benefits. The Facility Corporation will have no significant role in the construction of the development. SAHA submitted an independent cost estimate from Wiles Associates, who reviewed the plans and specifications for the San Juan Apartments. Wiles Associates provided a cost estimate, which reflects that NRP Contractors, LLC estimate of $63.37 per square foot is less than its estimate of $63.76 per square foot for this project. As NRP Contractors, LLC cost was below that of the independent cost estimates, HUD's condition is satisfied. *Contact:* Dominique Blom, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)401-8812. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 982.505(d). *Project/Activity:* King County Housing Authority (KCHA), King County, WA. The KCHA requested a waiver regarding exception payment standards so that it could provide a reasonable accommodation to a person with disabilities. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 982.505(d) of HUD's regulations states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent

(FMR)for the unit size. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 27, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The assisted participant is a person with disabilities. The participant's physician stated that due to the participant's mental impairment and disabilities associated with traumatic head injury the participant should remain in the current unit that is close to the medical care facility. To provide a reasonable accommodation so that this participant would pay no more than 40 percent of the participant's adjusted income toward the family share, an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR was approved. *Contact:* David Vargas, Director, Housing Voucher Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)402-6192. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 982.505(d). *Project/Activity:* King County Housing Authority (KCHA), King County, WA. The KCHA requested a waiver regarding exception payment standards so that it could provide a reasonable accommodation to a person with disabilities. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 982.505(d) of HUD's regulations states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent

(FMR)for the unit size. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 14, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The assisted participant is a person with disabilities. The participant's physician stated that due to the participant's multiple neurological issues, the participant should remain in the current unit. To provide a reasonable accommodation so that the participant would pay no more than 40 percent of the participant's adjusted income toward the family share, an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR was approved. *Contact:* David Vargas, Director, Housing Voucher Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)402-6192. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 982.505(d). *Project/Activity:* King County Housing Authority (KCHA), King County, WA. The KCHA requested a waiver regarding exception payment standards so that it could provide a reasonable accommodation to a person with disabilities. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 982.505(d) off HUD's regulations states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent

(FMR)for the unit size. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 2, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The assisted participant is a person with disabilities. The participant owns a manufactured home, which has been modified to meet the participant's physical needs, and is accessible to support services in the area. To provide a reasonable accommodation so that this newly admitted participant would pay no more than 40 percent of the participant's adjusted income toward the family share, an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR was approved. *Contact:* David Vargas, Director, Housing Voucher Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(FMR)for the unit size. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* January 23, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The assisted participant is an elderly person with disabilities. The participant owns a manufactured home, which has been modified to meet the participant's physical needs, and is accessible to transportation and services in the area. To provide a reasonable accommodation so that this newly admitted participant would pay no more than 40 percent of the participant's adjusted income toward the family share, an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR was approved *Contact:* David Vargas, Director, Housing Voucher Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC. 20410-5000, telephone

(202)402-6192. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 982.505(d). *Project/Activity:* Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASC), Snohomish County, WA. The HASC requested a waiver regarding exception payment standards so that it could provide a reasonable accommodation to a person with disabilities. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 982.505(d) of HUD's regulations states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent

(FMR)for the unit size. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* March 22, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The assisted participant, who is a person with disabilities, owns a manufactured home and the participant's physician and therapist documented that it would be a hardship for the participant to move. To provide a reasonable accommodation so that the newly admitted participant would pay no more than 40 percent of the participant's adjusted income toward the family share, an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR was approved *Contact:* Dr. Alfred Jurison, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone

(202)708-0477. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 982.505(d). *Project/Activity:* Sarasota Office of Housing and Community Development (SOHCD), Sarasota, FL. The SOHCD requested a waiver regarding exception payment standards so that it could provide a reasonable accommodation to a person with disabilities. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 982.505(d) of HUD's regulations states that a public housing agency may only approve a higher payment standard for a family as a reasonable accommodation if the higher payment standard is within the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the fair market rent

(FMR)for the unit size. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* January 23, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The assisted participant is a person with disabilities. The participant required a detached home that was not close to a highway or any chemical exposures as documented by the participant's medical health care provider. A three-bedroom unit was the only unit that was available after an extensive housing search. To provide a reasonable accommodation so that this newly admitted participant would pay no more than 40 percent of the participant's adjusted income toward the family share, an exception payment standard that exceeded the basic range of 90 to 110 percent of the FMR was approved. *Contact:* David Vargas, Director, Housing Voucher Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)402-6192. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 983.51(b)(1). *Project/Activity:* Housing Authority of the City of Lake Charles (HACLC), Lake Charles, Louisiana. The HACLC requested a waiver of competition under the project-based voucher PBV regulations so that it could use available money under its approved Notice of Intent and Fungibility Plan to lower its debt service on a PHA-owned 20 unit complex in Raleigh, Smith County. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 983.51(b)(1) of HUD's regulations states that the PHA must select PBV proposals in accordance with the selection procedures in the PHA administrative plan and may not limit proposals to a single site or practically preclude owner submission of proposals for PBV housing in different sites. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* March 1, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HACLC intends to use available funds in accordance with the Department's implementation guidance for 901 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations dated July 28, 2006, to acquire existing units that will comply with housing quality standards and be available to previously assisted families that were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. *Contact:* David Vargas, Director, Housing Voucher Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone,

(202)402-6192. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 983.51(b)(1). *Project/Activity:* Mississippi Regional Housing Authority V (MRHAV) requested a waiver of competition under the project-based voucher PBV regulations so that it could use available money under its approved Notice of Intent and Fungibility Plan to lower its debt service on a PHA-owned 20 unit complex in Raleigh, Smith County. *Nature of Requirement:* Section 983.51(b)(1) of HUD's regulations states that the PHA must select PBV proposals in accordance with the selection procedures in the PHA administrative plan and may not limit proposals to a single site or practically preclude owner submission of proposals for PBV housing in different sites. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 23, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The MRHAV intends to use available funds in accordance with the Department's implementation guidance for 901 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations dated July 28, 2006, to expeditiously serve previously assisted families displaced by Hurricane Katrina. *Contact:* David Vargas, Director, Housing Voucher Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone,

(202)402-6192. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 990.185(a). *Project/Activity:* Utica Municipal Housing Authority (UMHA), Buffalo, New York. The UMHA is contracting to Energy Performance through a term longer than the stated 12-year maximum. *Nature of Requirement:* On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Pub. L. 109-58, Subtitle D—Public Housing, Section 151, (2)(B), which states: “Term of contract—The total term of a contract described in clause

(i)shall not exceed 20 years to allow longer payback periods for retrofits, including windows, heating system replacements, wall insulation, site-based generation, advanced energy savings technologies, including renewable energy generation, and other such retrofits”. However, HUD's current regulation 24 CFR 990.185(a) states that the contract period shall not exceed 12 years. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* February 12, 2007. *Reason Waived:* UMHA is undertaking a self-developed energy project, acting as an Energy Services Company, and has hired a qualified third party consultant to provide energy management expertise. UMHA anticipates that recommendations arising from its energy audit will incorporate a selection of energy conservation measures whose life cycle expectations and cost will exceed the 12-year regulatory limit regulatory limitation in 24 CFR 990.185(a). UMHA anticipates that the selection of energy conservation of retrofits will be capable of generating adequate savings to amortize the resulting debt within the approved period of the energy performance contract. Based upon the anticipated savings and benefits to UMHA and its residents, this waiver grants the UMHA the 12-year payback period to allow up to a 20-year payback period, contingent on HUD's provisions to UMHA. HUD's provisions include additional information and technical activity requirements unique to the characteristics of the project and the PHA. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure success, minimize risk to projected savings (used to amortize the loan) and to HUD. The PHA must comply with all of HUD's provisions for the waiver to be effective. *Contact:* Nicole Faison, Director, Office of Public Housing Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4238, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-0744. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 990.185(a). *Project/Activity:* Watertown Housing Authority (WHA), Watertown, New York. The WHA is contracting to Energy Performance through a term longer than the regulatory 12-year maximum. *Nature of Requirement:* This regulation describes permissible funding options for accomplishing cost-effective energy audits and energy conservation measures (ECMs). It also states that if a PHA undertakes ECMs that are financed by an entity other than HUD, the PHA may qualify for incentives available in 24 CFR 990.185. The Department encourages PHAs, through its support of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to employ innovative approaches to achieve programmatic efficiency and reduce utility costs particularly as PHAs transition to asset management. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* March 1, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The WHA is undertaking a self-developed energy project, which the WHA can counteract a portion of the funding shortfalls historically appropriated to the housing industry by Congress to capture eight additional years of energy savings. This capture of non-Secretary funding would allow the implementation of capital improvements that have longer payback periods such as window replacement, heating plants upgrades, and increased building envelope insulation. The WHA would be able to consider including into their program site based generation and other advanced renewable and sustainable energy conservation retrofits. Based upon the anticipated savings and benefits to WHA and its residents, this waiver grants the WHA an increase from the 12-year payback period to allow up to a 20-year payback period, contingent on HUD's provisions to WHA. HUD's provisions include additional information and technical activity requirements unique to the characteristics of the project and the PHA. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure success, minimize risk to projected savings (used to amortize the loan) and to HUD. The PHA must comply with all of HUD's provisions for the waiver to be effective. *Contact:* Nicole Faison, Director, Office of Public Housing Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4238, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-0744. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 990.185(a). *Project/Activity:* Housing Authority of Portland (HAP), Portland, Oregon. The HAP is contracting to Energy Performance through a term longer that the regulatory 12-year maximum. *Nature of Requirement:* This regulation describes permissible funding options for accomplishing cost-effective energy audits and energy conservation measures (ECMs). It also states that if a PHA undertakes ECMs that are financed by an entity other than HUD, the PHA may qualify for incentives available in 24 CFR 990.185. The Department encourages PHAs, through its support of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to employ innovative approaches to achieve programmatic efficiency and reduce utility costs as PHAs transition to asset management. *Granted By:* Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* March 1, 2007. *Reason Waived:* The HAP can implement capital improvements that have longer payback periods such as window replacement, heating plants upgrades, and increased building envelope insulation. HAP will also investigate and consider including other advanced renewable and sustainable energy conservation retrofits in its program. This request will permit a benefit from energy performance contracting at HAP's public housing developments through a term longer than the stated 12-year maximum. This is in direct correlation to the National Energy Policy Act, approved by Congress and signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005 and PIH Notice 2006-06. HAP anticipates that the selection of energy conservation of retrofits will be capable of generating adequate savings to amortize the resulting debt within the approved period of the energy performance contract. Based upon the anticipated savings and benefits to HAP and its residents, this waiver grants the HAP the 12-year payback period to allow up to a 20-year payback period, contingent on HUD's provisions to HAP. HUD's provisions include additional information and technical activity requirements unique to the characteristics of the project and the PHA. The purpose of the provisions is to ensure success, minimize risk to projected savings (used to amortize the loan) and to HUD. The PHA must comply with all of HUD's provisions for the waiver to be effective. *Contact:* Nicole Faison, Director, Office of Public Housing Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4238, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-0744. • *Regulation:* 24 CFR 990.185(a). *Project/Activity:* Schuylkill County Housing Authority (SCHA), Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania is contracting to energy performance through a term longer than the regulatory 12-year maximum. *Nature of Requirement:* On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Pub. L. 109-58, Subtitle D—Public Housing, Section 151, (2)(B), which states: “Term of contract—The total term of a contract described in clause

(RFP)for an Energy Performance Contracting program. The SCHA selected an Energy Services Company

(ESCO)to perform the energy audit and executed a contract. Based on the SCHA's knowledge of its utility related needs and equipment, it anticipated that the recommendations arising from the audit would incorporate a selection of energy conservation improvements whose life cycle expectation and cost would exceed the 12-year regulatory limitation reflected in 24 CFR 990.185. The SCHA anticipates that the selection of retrofits is capable of generating adequate savings to amortize the resulting debt within the approved period of the Energy Performance Contract. *Contact:* Nicole Faison, Director, Office of Public Housing Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4238, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-0744. • *Regulations:* 24 CFR part 5 and 24 CFR Chapter IX. *Project/Activity:* The PHAs identified in Table 1, are all located within a presidentially declared disaster area as a result of damages caused by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita or Wilma, and each PHA notified HUD of the need for one or more regulatory waivers made available to PHAs in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma disaster areas by three **Federal Register** notices. The first notice is *Regulatory and Administrative Waivers Granted for Public and Indian Housing Programs to Assist with Recovery and Relief in Hurricane Katrina Disaster Areas, signed September 27, 2005, and published in the* Federal Register *on October 3, 2005 (70 FR 57716), the second notice is Regulatory and Administrative Waivers Granted for Public and Indian Housing Programs to Assist with Recovery and Relief in Hurricane Rita Disaster Areas; and Additional Administrative Relief for Hurricane Katrina, signed October 25, 2005, and published in the* Federal Register * on November 1, 2005 (70 FR 66222), and the third notice is Regulatory and Administrative Waivers Granted for Public and Indian Housing Programs To Assist With Recovery and Relief in Hurricane Wilma Disaster Areas, signed on March 7, 2006, and published in the* Federal Register * on March 13, 2006 (71 FR 12988):* *Nature of Requirements:* The three **Federal Register** notices provided for waiver of the following regulations, in 24 CFR part 5 and 24 CFR Chapter IX for those PHAs in the disaster areas that notified HUD through a special waiver request process designed to expedite both the submission of regulatory requests to HUD and HUD's response to the request. 1. 24 CFR 5.216(g)(5) (Disclosure and Verification of Social Security and Employer Identification Numbers); 2. 24 CFR 5.512(c) (Verification of Eligible Immigration Status; Secondary Verification); 3. 24 CFR 5.801(c) and 5.801(d) (Uniform Financial Reporting Standards (UFRS)); 4. 24 CFR 902 (Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS)); 5. 24 CFR 903.5 (Annual Plan Submission Deadline); 6. 24 CFR 905.10(i) (Capital Fund Formula; Limitation of Replacement Housing Funds to New Development); 7. 24 CFR 941.306 (Maximum Project); 8. 24 CFR 965.302 (Requirement for Energy Audits); 9. 24 CFR 982.54 (Administrative Plan); 10. 24 CFR 982.206 (Waiting List; Opening and Public Notice); 11. 24 CFR 982.401(d) (Housing Quality Standards; Space Requirements); 12. 24 CFR 982.503(b) (Waiver of payment standard; Establishing Payment Standard; Amounts); 13. 24 CFR 984.303 (Contract of Participation; Family Self-Sufficiency

(FSS)Program; Extension of Contract) and 24 CFR 984.105 (Minimum Payment Size); 14. 24 CFR part 985 (Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP)); and 15. 24 CFR 990.145 (Dwelling Units with Approved Vacancies). 16. 24 CFR 1000.156 and 1000.158 (IHBG Moderate Design Requirements for Housing Development). 17. 24 CFR 1000.214 (Indian Housing Plan

(IHP)Submission Deadline). 18. 24 CFR 1003.400(c) and Section I.C. of FY 2005 Indian Community Development Block Grants (ICDBG) Program Notice of Funding Availability

(NOFA)(Grant Ceilings for ICDBG Imminent Threat Applications). 19. 24 CFR 1003.401 and Section I.C. of FY 2005 ICDBG NOFA (Application Requirements for ICDBG Imminent Threat Funds). 20. 24 CFR 1003.604 (ICDBG Citizen Participation Requirements). Both **Federal Register** notices described the regulatory requirement in detail and the period of suspension or alternative compliance date. *Granted By:* Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary HUD's Deputy Secretary granted the initial waivers that were presented in notices and published in the **Federal Register** on October 3, 2005, and November 1, 2005 notice. The waivers presented by notice published in the **Federal Register** on March 13, 2006 were granted by Orlando J. Cabrera, Assistant Secretary, Public and Indian Housing. *Date Granted:* Please refer to Table 1. Table 1 identifies Public Housing Agencies

(PHAs)that have requested and were granted the regulatory waivers made available through the three **Federal Register** notices. The table identity's by number (as listed in the **Federal Register** notices) the regulatory waivers granted to each housing entity and identifies whether the housing entity was located in a Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita or Hurricane Wilma disaster area. *Reason waived:* The regulations waived in the October 3, 2005, and the November 1, 2005, and the March 13, 2006, **Federal Register** notices were waived to facilitate the delivery of safe and decent housing under HUD's Public Housing programs to families and individuals that were displaced from their housing as a result of the hurricanes. *Contacts:* Reference the items numbers with the items identified in the aforementioned “Nature of Requirements” section for the following contacts: • Requirements 1, 2 and 8 “ Nicole Faison, Director, Public Housing Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4222, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-0744; • Requirements 3, 4 and 15—Wanda F. Funk, Senior Advisor, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8736; • Requirement 5—Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Director, Compliance and Coordination Division, Office of Field Operations, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4112, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-4016. • Requirements 6 and 7 “ Jeffery Riddel, Director, Capital Fund Division, Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4146, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)401-8812; • Requirements 9-14—Alfred C. Jurison, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-0477; • Requirements 16-20—Deborah M. Lalancette, Director, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1670 Broadway Denver, CO 80202, telephone

(303)675-1600. Table 1 Housing authority code Housing Authority Name and Hurricane Disaster Area, (K),

(R)and

(W)indicates whether the Housing Authority was located in the hurricane Katrina, Rita or Wilma disaster areas. Regulatory Waivers Granted, by Item No. Date Notification Received MS103 The Housing Authority of the City of Jackson, Mississippi

(K)1-4, 9-13 & 15 02/07/07 FL005 Miami Dade Housing Authority

(W)1-9, 13-15 02/26/07 FL028 Housing Authority of Pompano Beach

(K)4 02/09/07 TX005 Housing Authority of the City of Houston 14 01/05/07 • *Regulations:* 24 CFR part 5 and 24 CFR Chapter IX. *Project/Activity:* The PHAs identified in Table 1, are all located within a presidentially declared disaster areas; and each PHA was previously granted regulatory waiver(s), as provided for in **Federal Register** notices *Regulatory and Administrative Waivers Granted for Public and Indian Housing Programs to Assist with Recovery and Relief in Hurricane Katrina, Rita, and Wilma Disaster Areas* , published October 3, 2005, November 1, 2005, and March 13, 2006, and in compliance **Federal Register** notice Extension of Regulatory and Administrative Waivers Granted for Public and Indian Housing Programs to Assist with Recovery and Relief in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma Disaster Areas, signed December 21, 2006, and published in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2006 (71 FR 78022): *Nature of Requirements:* The **Federal Register** notice provided for an extension of previously granted waivers of the following regulations, in 24 CFR part 5 and 24 CFR Chapter IX for those PHAs in the disaster areas that notified HUD through a special waiver request process designed to expedite both the submission of regulatory requests to HUD and HUD's response to the request. a. 24 CFR 5.801(c) and 5.801(d) (Uniform Financial Reporting Standards (UFRS)); b. 24 CFR 902 (Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS)); c. 24 CFR 903.5 (Annual Plan Submission Deadline); d. 24 CFR 905.10(i) (Capital Fund Formula; Limitation of Replacement Housing Funds to New Development); e. 24 CFR 941.306 (Maximum Project); f. 24 CFR 965.302 (Requirement for Energy Audits); g. 24 CFR 982.54 (Administrative Plan); h. 24 CFR 982.401(d) (Housing Quality Standards; Space Requirements); i. 24 CFR 982.503(b) (Waiver of payment standard; Establishing Payment Standard; Amounts); j. 24 CFR 984.303 (Contract of Participation; Family Self-Sufficiency

(FSS)Program; Extension of Contract) and 24 CFR 984.105 (Minimum Payment Size); k.24 CFR part 985 (Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP)); and l. 24 CFR 990.145 (Dwelling Units with Approved Vacancies). The **Federal Register** notice described the regulatory requirements in detail and the period of suspension or alternative compliance date. *Granted By:* Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, by notice published in the **Federal Register** on December 27, 2006. *Date Granted:* Please refer to Table 1. Table 1 identifies Public Housing Agencies

(PHAs)that have requested and were granted the extension to the regulatory waivers made available through the three **Federal Register** notice. The table identifies by letter (as listed in the **Federal Register** notice) the regulatory extension to waivers granted to each housing entity and identifies whether the housing entity was located in a Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita or Hurricane Wilma disaster area. *Reason waived:* The regulations waived in the December 27, 2006, **Federal Register** notice were waived to facilitate the delivery of safe and decent housing under HUD's Public Housing programs to families and individuals that were displaced from their housing as a result of the hurricanes. *Contacts:* Reference the item numbers with the items identified in the aforementioned “Nature of Requirements” section for the following contacts: • Requirements for item “f”—Nicole Faison, Director, Public Housing Programs, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4222, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-0744; • Requirements for items “a”, “b”, and “l”—Wanda F. Funk, Senior Advisor, Real Estate Assessment Center, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 550 12th Street, SW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)475-8736; • Requirement for items “c”—Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Director, Compliance and Coordination Division, Office of Field Operations, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4112, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-4016. • Requirements for items “d” and “e”—Jeffery Riddel, Director, Capital Fund Division, Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4146, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)401-8812; • Requirements for items “f”, “g”, “h”, “i”, “j”, and “k”—Alfred C. Jurison, Director, Housing Voucher Management and Operations Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4210, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone

(202)708-0477; TABLE 1 HOUSING AUTHORITY CODE Housing Authority Name and Hurricane Disaster Area, (K),

(R)and

(W)indicates whether the Housing Authority was located in the hurricane Katrina, Rita or Wilma disaster area. Regulatory Waivers Granted, listed by item No Date Request Acknowledged (N/A indicates Automatic waiver granted) AL165 Foley Housing Authority

(K)c, f, k & l 01/08/07 FL003 Tampa Housing Authority

(W)a & b N/A FL005 Miami Dade Housing Authority

(W)a-h, j-l 02/02/07 FL010 Housing Authority of Fort Lauderdale

(W)k 02/07/07 FL017 Housing Authority of the City of Miami Beach

(W)b N/A FL021 Pahokee Housing Authority

(W)b N/A FL025 Housing Authority of the City of Titusville

(W)b N/A FL060 Punta Gorda Housing Authority

(W)b N/A FL076 Riviera Beach Housing Authority

(W)b N/A FL080 Palm Beach County Housing Authority

(W)b N/A FL089 Hillsborough County-BOCC

(W)a N/A FL116 Dania Beach Housing Authority

(W)b & k 01/05/07 FL141 Collier County Housing Authority

(W)j & k 01/29/07 FL144 Monroe County Housing Authority

(W)c N/A LA001 Housing Authority of the City of New Orleans

(K)a-l 02/09/07 LA003 Housing Authority of East Baton Rouge Parish

(K)b & k 02/23/07 LA004 Lake Charles Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A LA005 Lafayette Parish Housing Authority

(K)a-l 01/29/07 LA011 Westwego Housing Authority

(K)a, b & l 01/29/07 LA012 Housing Authority of Kenner

(K)a-c, g, h & l 02/01/07 LA013 Jefferson Parish Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A LA024 Bogalusa Housing Authority

(K)b N/A LA026 Kaplan Housing Authority

(K)b N/A LA029 Crowley Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A LA036 Morgan City Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A LA043 Donaldsonville Housing Authority

(K)c, f & l 02/01/07 LA045 Arcadia Housing Authority

(K)b N/A LA046 Housing Authority of the Town of Vinton

(K)a & b N/A LA055 Housing Authority of the City of Opelousas

(K)a-f & l 02/01/07 LA063 Sulphur Housing Authority

(K)k 01/29/07 LA070 Housing Authority of the Town of Patterson

(K)a & b N/A LA080 Housing Authority of Lafourche Parish

(K)a N/A LA084 Parks Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A LA090 Houma-Terrebonne Housing Authority

(K)d 01/05/07 LA092 St. James Parish Housing Authority

(K)b N/A LA094 St. Charles Parish Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A LA095 Housing Authority of St. John the Baptist Parish

(K)a & b N/A LA103 Slidell Housing Authority

(K)a-l 01/29/07 LA122 Housing Authority of the town of Colfax

(K)a & b 03/21/07 LA172 Calcasieu Parish Housing Department

(K)c, g, j & k 01/29/07 LA238 Covington Housing Authority

(K)a, b, k & l 01/29/07 LA254 Town of Pearl River

(K)a-l 01/29/07 LA262 East Carroll Parish Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A MS001 Hattiesburg Housing Authority

(K)c & f 01/08/07 MS003 The Housing Authority of the City of McComb City, MS

(K)a-f, h, i & l 01/05/07 MS004 The Housing Authority of the City of Meridian

(K)k 03/22/07 MS005 Biloxi Housing Authority

(K)a-e, g, h, j-l 01/08/07 MS030 MS Regional Housing Authority No. V

(K)a, b, k 02/23/07 MS040 Mississippi Regional Housing Authority No. VIII

(K)c-g, i, j & l 03/21/07 MS057 Mississippi Regional Housing Authority No. VII

(K)k 01/05/07 MS058 Mississippi Regional Housing Authority No. VI

(K)a & b N/A MS064 Bay St. Louis Housing Authority

(K)c, d, f-h 01/05/07 MS066 Picayune Housing Authority

(K)b 01/05/07 MS071 Aberdeen Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A MS082 Winona Housing Authority

(K)a & b N/A MS084 Housing Authority of the Town of Summit

(K)c-f, h, i & l 01/05/07 MS086 Vicksburg Housing Authority

(K)b N/A MS094 Hazlehurst Housing Authority

(K)b N/A MS101 Waveland Housing Authority

(K)a, b, d-f 01/05/07 MS103 Housing Authority of the City of Jackson

(K)a & b N/A MS105 Natchez Housing Authority

(K)b N/A MS107 Greenwood Housing Authority

(K)a-c, g, h & l 03/05/07 MS109 Long Beach HA

(K)a-c, f-l 01/29/07 TX004 Fort Worth Housing Authority

(R)g, h & k 02/09/07 TX023 Housing Authority of the City a of Beaumont

(R)-e, g, j-l 02/02/07 TX034 City of Port Arthur Housing Authority a & b N/A TX037 Orange Housing Authority

(R)a, b, h, k & l 01/16/07 TX223 Newton Housing Authority

(R)b & f 02/09/07 TX225 Woodville Housing Authority

(R)b & f 01/29/07 TX383 San Augustine Housing Authority

(R)b 02/01/07 TX431 Tarrant County Housing Assistance Office

(R)a, g, h & k 02/09/07 TX512 Deep East Texas Council of Governments (DETCOG) Regional Housing Authority

(R)a, g, h & k 02/16/07 TX526 Brazos Valley Council of Governments

(R)k 03/02/07 TX540 Brenham Section 8 Program, City of

(R)k 03/02/07 [FR Doc. 07-3215 Filed 6-27-07; 2:06 pm]

Connectionstraces to 69

Traces to 69 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

32 references not yet in our index

50 CFR 648.92(c)
15 CFR 921
15 USC 2931-2934
15 CFR 730
18 CFR 35
Pub. L. 109-58
119 Stat. 594
520 F.2d 432
425 U.S. 662
Pub. L. 95-617
92 Stat. 3117
15 USC 79a
Pub. L. 102-486
106 Stat. 2776
225 F.3d 667
535 U.S. 1
272 F.3d 607
475 F.3d 1277
18 CFR 1
18 CFR 45
24 CFR 58
24 CFR 570
24 CFR 92.2519(a)(1)
24 CFR 200.217(a)(5)
24 CFR 200
24 CFR 5
24 CFR 902.20
24 CFR 941.606(n)(l)(ii)(B)
24 CFR 902
24 CFR 905.10(i)
24 CFR 941.306
24 CFR 985

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

Notice

F. App'x520 F.2d 432

SCOTUS425 U.S. 662

F. App'x225 F.3d 667

Cites 101 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources