Notices. Notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria

17,446 words·~79 min read·/register/2005/12/19/05-24236

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

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RIN 1820-ZA41 The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Multi-Year Individualized Education Program Demonstration Program AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes requirements and selection criteria for a competition in which the Department will select up to 15 States to participate in a pilot program, the Multi-Year Individualized Education Program

(IEP)Demonstration Program (Multi-Year IEP Program). State proposals approved under this program would create opportunities for participating local educational agencies

(LEAs)to improve long-term planning for children with disabilities through the development and use of comprehensive multi-year IEPs. Additionally, the proposed requirements and selection criteria focus on an identified national need to reduce the paperwork burden associated with IEPs while preserving students' civil rights and promoting academic achievement. The requirements and selection criteria proposed in this notice will be used for a single, one-time-only competition under this program. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Troy Justesen, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, room 5126, Washington, DC 20202-2641. If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, you may address them to us at the following address: *comments@ed.gov* . You must include the term “Multi-Year IEP Public Comment” in the subject line of your electronic message. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy R. Justesen. Telephone: 202-245-7468. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation To Comment We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed requirements and selection criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final requirements and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed requirement or selection criterion that each comment addresses. We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed requirements and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 5126, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Statutory Background of the Multi-Year IEP Program On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law Public Law 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, reauthorizing and amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act). This new law reflects the importance of strengthening our nation's efforts to ensure every child with a disability has available a free appropriate public education

(FAPE)that is

(1)of high quality and

(2)designed to achieve the high standards established in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The Multi-Year IEP Program is one of two demonstration programs authorized under the new law that is designed to increase the resources and time available for classroom instruction and other activities focused on improving educational and functional results of children with disabilities. This program is also intended to enhance long-term educational planning and collaboration among IEP team members. Through the Multi-Year IEP Program, established under section 614(d)(5) of the Act, the Secretary may approve no more than 15 proposals from States, including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and outlying areas (States) to offer parents, in participating LEAs, the option of comprehensive, multi-year IEPs to improve long-term planning, which would cover natural transition points for participating children. Under section 614(d)(5)(C) of the Act, the term “natural transition points” means those periods that are close in time to the transition of a child with a disability from preschool to elementary grades, from elementary grades to middle or junior high school grades, from middle or junior high school grades to secondary school grades, and from secondary school grades to post-secondary activities, but in no case a period longer than three years (for the full text of section 614(d)(5) of the Act, go to: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/index.html* ). These multi-year IEPs are intended to focus parents and teachers on long-term planning for student achievement, reduce the paperwork teachers must complete, and increase teacher instructional time. Under the Multi-Year IEP Program, multi-year IEPs cannot exceed three years and their development is optional for parents, requiring informed parental consent. Under the Act, an IEP must contain measurable annual goals for a student's progress, and must be reviewed at least annually by the IEP team. Many parents have indicated that they would like the opportunity to engage their LEA in long-term planning for their child, rather than focusing on only one year at a time. A multi-year IEP would include long-term goals for academic achievement and functional performance, coinciding with natural transition points, and the progression of annual goals leading to achievement of the long-term goals. Statutory Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program The Act establishes the following requirements that States must follow in developing and implementing their Multi-Year IEP Program proposals: 1. A State applying for approval under this program must propose to conduct demonstrations using a comprehensive multi-year IEP (not to exceed three years) that coincides with natural transition points for each participating child. 2. Except as specifically provided for under this program, all of the Act's requirements regarding provision of FAPE to children with disabilities (including requirements related to the content, development, review, and revision of the IEP under section 614(d) of the Act and procedural safeguards under section 615 of the Act) apply to participants in this Multi-Year IEP Program. 3. A State submitting a proposal under the Multi-Year IEP Program must include the following material in its proposal:

(a)Assurances that if an LEA offers parents the option of a multi-year IEP, development of the multi-year IEP is voluntary.

(b)Assurances that the LEA will obtain informed consent from parents before a comprehensive multi-year IEP is developed for their child.

(c)A list of all required elements for a comprehensive multi-year IEP, including:

(i)Measurable long-term goals not to exceed three years, coinciding with natural transition points for the child, that will enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and that will meet the child's other needs that result from the child's disability.

(ii)Measurable annual goals for determining progress toward meeting the long-term goals, coinciding with natural transition points for the child, that will enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and that will meet the child's other needs that result from the child's disability.

(d)A description of the process for the review and revision of a multi-year IEP, including:

(i)A review by the IEP team of the child's multi-year IEP at each of the child's natural transition points.

(ii)In years other than a child's natural transition points, an annual review of the child's IEP to determine the child's current levels of progress and whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved, and a requirement to amend the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child to continue to meet the measurable goals set forth in the IEP.

(iii)If the IEP team determines, on the basis of a review, that the child is not making sufficient progress toward the goals described in the multi-year IEP, a requirement that within 30 calendar days of the IEP team's determination, the LEA shall ensure that the IEP team carries out a more thorough review of the IEP in accordance with section 614(d)(4) of the Act.

(iv)A requirement that, at the request of the parent, the IEP team will conduct an immediate review of the child's multi-year IEP, rather than at the child's next transition point or annual review. Background for Proposed Requirements and Selection Criteria Although the Act sets out the previously-described requirements, it does not provide for other requirements that are necessary for implementation of this program. For instance, the Act does not address the relationship among the content requirements of an IEP, the new content requirements of the multi-year IEP, and informed parental consent requirements. The Act also does not establish selection criteria for the Department to use to evaluate State proposals. Thus, in this notice, we are proposing additional Multi-Year IEP Program requirements to address these and other implementation issues and selection criteria that we will use to evaluate State proposals. Under section 614(d)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department is required to report on the effectiveness of the Multi-Year IEP Program. In this notice, we also are proposing requirements with which States must comply that will allow the Department to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. To accomplish this, the Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) will conduct an evaluation using a quasi-experimental design that collects data on the following outcomes: Educational and functional results for students with disabilities, time and resource expenditures by IEP team members and teachers, quality of long-term education plans incorporated in IEPs, and degree of collaboration among IEP members. These outcomes will be compared for students whose parents consent to their child's participation in a multi-year IEP and students who are matched on type of disability, age, prior educational outcomes, and to the extent feasible, the nature of the special education services, who do not participate in the multi-year IEP. Specifics of the design will be confirmed during discussions with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. Participating States will play a crucial supportive role in this evaluation. They will, at minimum, assist in developing the specifics of the evaluation plan, assure that districts participating in the multi-year IEP will participate in the evaluation, supply data relevant to the outcomes being measured from State data sources ( *e.g.* , student achievement and functional outcome data, complaint numbers), provide background information on relevant State policies and practices, provide access to current student IEPs during Year 1 of the evaluation, and complete questionnaires and participate in interviews. Data collection and analysis will be the responsibility of the Institute through its contractor. States can expect to allocate resources for this purpose at a minimum during Year 1 to assist with planning the details of the evaluation, ensuring the participation of involved districts, providing access to relevant State records, and completing questionnaires or participating in interviews. Over the course of the evaluation, participating States will receive an annual incentive payment (described in the next section) that will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation. We will announce the final requirements and selection criteria in a notice in the **Federal Register** . We will determine the final requirements and selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. Note: An application and award for the Multi-Year IEP Program does not preclude an application and award for the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program, which is the subject of a separate notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria. Note: This notice does *not* solicit applications. We will invite applications through a notice in the **Federal Register** at a later date. Proposed Additional Requirements for Multi-Year IEP Program The Secretary proposes the following additional requirements for the Multi-Year IEP Program: 1. The Secretary will not grant a State approval to participate in this program if the Secretary determines that the State currently meets the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or

(iv)of the Act relative to its implementation of Part B of the Act. 2. The Secretary may terminate any Multi-Year IEP Program project if the Secretary determines that the State

(a)Needs assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and the State's participation in this program has contributed to or caused the need for assistance;

(b)needs intervention under 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or

(c)failed to appropriately implement its project. 3. States submitting a proposal under the Multi-Year IEP Program must include the following material in their proposal:

(a)Assurances that before an LEA requests a parent's informed consent to the development of a multi-year IEP, the LEA will inform the parent in writing of

(i)any differences between the requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under section 614(d) of the Act and the State's requirements relating to the content, development, review, and revision of IEPs under the State's approved Multi-Year IEP Program proposal; and

(ii)the parent's right to revoke consent and the LEA's responsibility to conduct, within 30 calendar days after revocation by the parent, an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets the requirements of section 614(d)(1)(A) of the Act.

(b)A description of how the State obtained input from school and district personnel and parents in developing the list of required elements for each multi-year IEP and the description of the process for the review and revision of each multi-year IEP.

(c)A description of how the State obtained broad stakeholder input on its Multi-Year IEP Program proposal.

(d)Assurances that the State will cooperate fully, if selected, in a national evaluation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Cooperation includes devoting a minimum of 4 months between the State's award and subsequent implementation of this program to conduct joint planning with the evaluator. It also includes participation by the State educational agency

(SEA)in the following evaluation activities:

(i)Providing to the evaluator the list of required elements for the multi-year IEP and the description of the process for the review and revision of the multi-year IEP submitted as part of the State's application for this program. Ensuring that the evaluator will have access to the most recent IEP created before participating in the Multi-Year IEP Program and the multi-year IEP(s) created during the project for each participating child (multi-year IEP participants and matched participants who not not have a multi-year IEP), together with a general description of the process for completing both versions of the IEP.

(ii)Recruiting districts or schools to participate in the evaluation (as established in the evaluation design) and ensuring their continued cooperation with the evaluation. Providing a list of districts and schools that have been recruited and have agreed to implement the proposed Multi-Year IEP Program, allow data collection to occur, and cooperate fully with the evaluation. For each participating school or district providing basic demographic information such as student enrollment, district wealth and ethnicity breakdowns, the number of children with disabilities by category, and the number or type of personnel, as requested by the evaluator.

(iii)Serving in an advisory capacity to assist the evaluator in identifying valid and reliable data sources and improving the design of data collection instruments and methods.

(iv)Providing to the evaluator an inventory of existing State-level data relevant to the evaluation questions or consistent with the identified data sources. Supplying requested State-level data in accordance with the timelines specified in the evaluation design.

(v)If necessary to the final design of the study, providing assistance to the evaluator on the collection of data from parents, including obtaining informed consent, for parents to participate in interviews and respond to surveys and questionnaires.

(OSEP)project officer. 4. Each State receiving approval to participate in the Multi-Year IEP Program will be awarded an annual incentive payment of $10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related evaluation activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually to meet with the project officer and the evaluator. Each participating State will receive an additional incentive payment of $15,000 annually from the contractor to support evaluation activities in the State. Incentive payments may also be provided to participating districts to offset the costs of their participation in the evaluation of the Multi-Year IEP Program. Proposed Selection Criteria We propose that the following selection criteria be used to evaluate State proposals submitted under this program. These particular criteria were selected because they address the statutory requirements and proposed program requirements and permit applicants to propose a distinctive approach to addressing these requirements. Note: The maximum score for all of these criteria will be 100 points. We will inform applicants of the points or weights assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion in a notice published in the **Federal Register** inviting States to submit applications for this program. 1. *Significance.* The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.

(b)The likelihood that the proposed project will result in improvements in the IEP process, especially long-term planning for children with disabilities. 2. *Quality of the project design.* The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and address active participation in the program evaluation.

(b)The extent to which the design of the proposed project will improve long-term planning and address the need to reduce the paperwork burden associated with IEPs.

(c)The extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer involvement, including parental involvement. 3. *Quality of the management plan.* The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

(b)The extent to which the applicant has devoted sufficient resources to the evaluation of the Multi-Year IEP Program.

(c)How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, related services providers, administrators, or others, as appropriate. Executive Order 12866 This notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of the actions proposed in this notice, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed requirements and selection criteria justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. Intergovernmental Review This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414. Dated: December 14, 2005. John H. Hager, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E5-7506 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RIN 1820-ZA42 The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes requirements and selection criteria for a competition in which the Department will select up to 15 States to participate in a pilot program, the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program (Paperwork Waiver Program). State proposals approved under this program would create opportunities for participating States to reduce paperwork burdens and other administrative duties in order to increase time for instruction and other activities to improve educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The proposed requirements and selection criteria focus on an identified national need to reduce the paperwork burden associated with the requirements of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended, while preserving students' civil rights and promoting academic achievement. The requirements and selection criteria proposed in this notice will be used for a single, one-time-only competition under this program. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Troy Justesen, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, room 5126, Washington, DC 20202-2641. If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, you may address them to us at the following address: *comments@ed.gov* . You must include the term “Paperwork Waiver Public Comment” in the subject line of your electronic message. Please submit your comments only one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Troy Justesen. Telephone: 202-245-7468. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed requirements and selection criteria. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final requirements and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed requirement or selection criterion that each comment addresses. We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed requirements and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 5126, 550 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Statutory Background of the Paperwork Waiver Program On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law Public Law 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, reauthorizing and amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act). This new law reflects the importance of strengthening our Nation's efforts to ensure every child with a disability has available a free appropriate public education

(FAPE)that is

(1)of high quality and

(2)designed to achieve the high standards established in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The Paperwork Waiver Program is one of two demonstration programs authorized under the new law that is designed to address parents', special educators' and States' desire to reduce excessive and repetitious paperwork, administrative burden, and non-instructional teacher time and, at the same time, to increase the resources and time available for classroom instruction and other activities focused on improving educational and functional results of children with disabilities. Paperwork burden in special education affects

(1)the time school staff can devote to instruction or service provision and

(2)retention of staff, particularly special education teachers. In 2002, the Office of Special Education Programs

(OSEP)funded a nationally representative study of teachers' perceptions of sources of paperwork burden, the hours devoted to these activities, and possible explanations for variations among teachers in the hours devoted to these tasks. Among the findings related to the Individualized Education Program (IEP), student evaluations, progress reporting, and case management was that teachers whose administrative duties and paperwork exceeded four hours per week were more likely to perceive these responsibilities as interfering with their job of teaching. Moreover, the study found that the mean number of hours reported by teachers to be devoted to these tasks was 6.3 hours per week. Through the Paperwork Waiver Program, established under section 609(a) of the Act, the Secretary may grant waivers of certain statutory and regulatory requirements under Part B of the Act to not more than 15 States, including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the outlying areas (States) based on State proposals to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. The Secretary is authorized to grant these waivers for a period of up to four years. Although the purpose of the Paperwork Waiver Program is to reduce the paperwork burden associated with the Act, not all statutory and regulatory requirements under Part B of the Act may be waived. Specifically, the Secretary may not waive any statutory or regulatory provisions relating to applicable civil rights requirements or procedural safeguards. Furthermore, waivers may not affect the right of a child with a disability to receive FAPE. In short, State proposals must preserve the basic rights of students with disabilities. Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program The Act establishes the following requirements to govern the Paperwork Waiver Program proposals: 1. States applying for approval under this program must submit a proposal to reduce excessive paperwork and non-instructional time burdens that do not assist in improving educational and functional results for children with disabilities. 2. A State submitting a proposal for the Paperwork Waiver Program must include in its proposal a list of any statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to, Part B of the Act that the State desires the Secretary to waive, in whole or in part (not including civil rights requirements and procedural safeguards as noted elsewhere in this notice); and a list of any State requirements that the State proposes to waive or change, in whole or in part, to carry out the waiver granted to the State by the Secretary. Waivers may be granted for a period of up to four years. 3. The Secretary is prohibited from waiving any statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to applicable civil rights requirements or procedural requirements under section 615 of the Act. A waiver may not affect the right of a child with a disability to receive FAPE (as defined in section 602(9) of the Act). 4. The Secretary will not grant any waiver to a State if the Secretary has determined that the State currently meets the conditions under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) or

(iv)of the Act relative to its implementation of Part B of the Act. 5. The Secretary will terminate a State's waiver granted as part of this program if the Secretary determines that the State

(a)needs assistance under section 616(d)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act and that the waiver has contributed to or caused the need for assistance;

(b)needs intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act or needs substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of the Act; or

(c)fails to appropriately implement its waiver. Background for Proposed Requirements and Selection Criteria Although the Act sets out the previously-described situations in which requirements cannot be waived, it does not provide specificity as to the particular requirements that are not subject to waiver or provide for other requirements that are necessary for implementation of this program. For instance, the Act does not address what requirements States may propose to waive without affecting the right of a child with a disability to receive FAPE. The Act also does not establish the selection criteria for the Department to use to evaluate State proposals. Thus, in this notice, we are proposing additional Paperwork Waiver Program requirements to address these and other implementation issues and selection criteria that we will use to evaluate State proposals. Under section 609(b) of the Act, the Department is required to report on the effectiveness of the waiver program. In this notice, we are proposing requirements with which States must comply that will allow the Department to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. To accomplish this, the Institute of Education Sciences (Institute) will conduct an evaluation using a quasi-experimental design that collects data on the following outcomes:

(a)Educational and functional results for students with disabilities,

(b)allocation and engagement of instructional time for students with disabilities,

(c)administrative duties, paperwork requirements, and resources by teaching and related services personnel,

(d)quality of special education services and plans incorporated in IEPs, and

(e)teacher, parent and administrator satisfaction. These outcomes will be compared for students who participate in the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program, and students who are matched on disability and prior educational outcomes who do not participate in the paperwork waiver program. Specifics of the design will be confirmed during discussion with the evaluator, a technical workgroup, and the participating States during the first several months of the study. Participating States will play a crucial supportive role in this evaluation. They will, at minimum, assist in developing the evaluation plan, assure that districts participating in the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program will collaborate with the evaluation, provide background information on relevant State policies and practices, and supply data relevant to the outcomes from State data sources ( *e.g.* , student achievement and functional performance data, complaint numbers), provide access to current student IEPs (if appropriate and paperwork waiver affects an IEP) during Year 1 of the evaluation, and complete questionnaires, surveys, and participate in interviews. Data collection and analysis will be the responsibility of the Institute through its contractor. States can expect to allocate resources for this purpose at minimum during Year 1 to assist with planning the details of the evaluation, ensuring participation of involved districts, providing access to relevant State records, and completing questionnaires or participating in interviews. Over the course of the evaluation, participating States will receive an annual incentive payment (described in the next section) that will offset the cost of participating in the evaluation. We will announce the final requirements and selection criteria in a notice in the **Federal Register** . We will determine the final requirements and selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. Note: An application and award for the Paperwork Waiver Program does not preclude application and award for the Multi-Year Individualized Education Program Demonstration Program, which is the subject of a separate notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria. Note: This notice does *not* solicit applications. We will invite applications through a notice in the **Federal Register** at a later date. Proposed Additional Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program The Secretary proposes the following additional requirements for the Paperwork Waiver Program. 1. A State submitting a proposal under the Paperwork Waiver Program must include the following material in its proposal:

(a)A description of how the State obtained input from school and district personnel and parents in selecting the requirements it is proposing for waiver and a description of any specific proposals for changing those requirements to reduce paperwork.

(b)A detailed description of how the State obtained broad stakeholder input on the proposal.

(c)A description of the procedures the State will employ to ensure that, if the waiver is granted, it will not result in a denial of the right to FAPE to any child with a disability.

(d)Assurances that parents will be given notice of any statutory requirements that will be waived.

(e)If a State is applying for a waiver of any paperwork requirements related to IEPs, assurances that the State will require that

(i)any participating local educational agency

(LEA)obtain informed consent from the parents before an IEP that does not meet the requirements of 614(d) of the Act is developed for a child; and

(ii)before an LEA requests a parent's informed consent, the LEA inform the parent in writing of

(A)Any differences between the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act relating to the content, development, review and revision of IEPs and the requirements relating to the content, development, review and revision of IEPs under the State's approved Paperwork Waiver Program proposal;

(B)the parent's right to revoke consent to the use of the IEP under the Paperwork Waiver Program proposal at any time; and

(C)the LEA's responsibility to conduct, within 30 calendar days after revocation by the parent, an IEP meeting to develop an IEP that meets all the requirements of section 614(d) of the Act.

(f)Assurances that the State will cooperate fully, if selected, in a national evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Program. Cooperation includes devoting a minimum of 4 months between the award and the implementation of the State's waiver to conduct joint planning with the evaluator. It also includes participation by the State educational agency

(SEA)in the following evaluation activities:

(i)For each item in the list of statutory, regulatory, or State requirements submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 in the *Statutory Requirements for Paperwork Waiver Program* section of this notice, ensuring that the evaluator will have access to the original and all subsequent new versions of the associated documents for each child involved in the evaluation, together with a general description of the process for completing each of the documents. For example, if elements of the IEP process are waived, the evaluator shall have access to the most recent IEP created under previous guidelines for each participating child, as well as all of the new IEPs created under the waiver, along with a description of the process for completing both types of IEPs.

(ii)Recruiting districts or schools to participate in the evaluation (as established in the evaluation design) and ensuring their continued cooperation with the evaluation. Providing a list of districts and schools that have been recruited and have agreed to implement the proposed Paperwork Waiver Program, allow data collection to occur, and cooperate fully with the evaluation. For each participating school or district, providing basic demographic information such as student enrollment, district wealth and ethnicity breakdowns, the number of children with disabilities by category, and the number or type of personnel, as requested by the evaluator.

(iii)Serving in an advisory capacity to assist the evaluator in identifying valid and reliable data sources and improving the design of data collection instruments and methods.

(v)Providing assistance to the evaluator with the collection of data from parents, including obtaining informed consent, for parent interviews and responses to surveys and questionnaires, if necessary to the final design of the evaluation.

(vi)Designating a coordinator for the project who will monitor the implementation of the project and work with the evaluator. This coordinator also will serve as the primary point of contact for the OSEP project officer. 2. For purposes of the statutory requirement prohibiting the Secretary from waiving any statutory requirements of, or regulatory requirements relating to, but not limited to, applicable civil rights requirements, the term *applicable civil rights requirements* as used in this notice includes all civil rights requirements in:

(a)Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended;

(b)Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;

(c)Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;

(d)Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and

(e)Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and their implementing regulations. The term does not include other requirements under the Act. 3. Each State receiving approval to participate in the Paperwork Waiver Program will be awarded an annual incentive payment of $10,000 to be used exclusively to support program-related evaluation activities, including one trip to Washington, DC, annually to meet with the project officer and the evaluator. Each participating State will receive an additional incentive payment of $15,000 annually from the evaluation contractor to support evaluation activities in the State. Incentive payments may also be provided to participating districts to offset the cost of their participation in the evaluation of the Paperwork Waiver Demonstration Program. Proposed Selection Criteria We propose that the following selection criteria be used to evaluate State proposals submitted under this program. These particular criteria were selected because they address the statutory requirements and proposed program requirements and permit applicants to propose a distinctive approach to addressing these requirements. Note: The maximum score for all of these criteria will be 100 points. We will inform applicants of the points or weights assigned to each criterion and sub-criterion in a notice published in the **Federal Register** inviting States to submit applications for this program. 1. *Significance* . The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.

(b)The likelihood that the proposed project will reduce the paperwork burden and increase instructional time and improve academic achievement. 2. *Quality of the project design* . The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and address active participation in the program evaluation.

(b)The extent to which the design of the proposed project will successfully reduce excessive paperwork and increase instructional time.

(c)The extent to which the proposed project encourages consumer involvement, including parental involvement. 3. *Quality of the management plan* . The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(a)The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

(b)The extent to which the applicant has devoted sufficient resources to the evaluation of the waiver program.

(c)How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, related services providers, school administrators, or others, as appropriate. Executive Order 12866 This notice of proposed requirements and selection criteria has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of the actions proposed in this notice, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed requirements and selection criteria justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. Intergovernmental Review This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(1)*Waste processing alternatives* for treating, storing and disposing of liquid mixed (radioactive and hazardous) transuranic

(TRU)waste/sodium-bearing waste

(SBW)1 and newly-generated liquid radioactive waste

(NGLW)stored in below-grade tanks and solid high-level radioactive waste

(HLW)calcine stored in bin sets at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) on the Idaho National Laboratory

(INL)Site, previously named the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL); and 1 The Final EIS refers to SBW as mixed transuranic waste/SBW. However a determination that SBW is transuranic waste has not been made.

(2)*Facility disposition alternatives* for final disposition of facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC after their missions are complete, including any new facilities necessary to implement the waste processing alternatives. DOE plans a phased decision making process. DOE considered the information in the Final EIS, a related Supplement Analysis (DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) (SA), and comments received on the **Federal Register** Notice (70 FR 44598; August 3, 2005) that announced DOE's preferred treatment technology for SBW when making the decisions in this ROD. This first ROD addresses SBW treatment, facilities disposition, excluding the INTEC Tank Farm Facility (Tank Farm) and bin sets closure, and DOE's strategy for HLW calcine. DOE has decided to treat SBW using the steam reforming technology. The Department's preferred disposal path for this waste is disposal as TRU waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(WIPP)near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Until such time as the regulatory approvals are obtained and a determination that the waste is TRU is made, the Department will manage the waste to allow disposal at WIPP or at a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel

(SNF)and HLW. For facilities disposition, DOE has decided to conduct performance-based closure (to contamination levels below those that would impact the human health and the environment as established by applicable regulations and DOE Orders as determined on a case-by-case basis depending on risk) of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC once their missions are complete. Newly constructed waste processing facilities needed to implement the decisions in this ROD, such as the steam reforming facility for SBW treatment, will be designed consistent with clean closure methods and planned to be clean closed when their missions are complete, regardless of the classification of the waste they treat. All INTEC facilities directly related to the HLW Program will be closed in accordance with applicable regulations and DOE Orders. Further, consistent with DOE's *Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at the INEEL* (July 2002), DOE's strategy for HLW calcine is to retrieve the calcine for disposal outside the State of Idaho. Accordingly, DOE will develop calcine retrieval demonstration processes and conduct risk-based analyses, including disposal options, focused on the calcine stored at the INTEC. After the Final EIS was issued, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA), Pub. L. 108-375, was enacted. Section 3116 of the NDAA provides that certain waste resulting from reprocessing of SNF is not high-level waste if the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), makes certain determinations. Therefore, DOE plans to issue an amended ROD in 2006 specifically addressing closure of the Tank Farm Facility, which stored certain wastes resulting from reprocessing, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy's determination, in consultation with the NRC, under Section 3116. In a future ROD, DOE will decide the final strategy for HLW calcine retrieval, including determining whether and how to further treat, if applicable, package, and store calcine pending disposal. DOE expects to issue the amended ROD for HLW calcine disposition and bin set closure in 2009. The State of Idaho participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the *Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Environmental Impact Statement.* The State provided the following input to DOE's decisions for waste processing and facility disposition. *Waste Processing:* The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's selection of steam reforming as the technology for solidifying remaining INTEC Tank Farm liquids, provided DOE obtains required permits for its treatment facility and post-treatment storage, and produces a waste form acceptable for disposal at a repository outside Idaho. *Facility Disposition:* The State concurs with the performance-based closure of existing facilities directly related to the high-level waste program at INTEC, once their missions are complete, subject to the State's separate approval of individual closure plans under the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act and compliance with section 3116 of the NDAA. The State also concurs with DOE's decision to clean close newly constructed waste processing facilities. *Remaining Decisions:* The State will provide additional input on DOE's remaining decisions for HLW facility disposition and calcine treatment, which DOE must make by December 31, 2009, in accordance with our 1995 Settlement Agreement. The State will continue to coordinate with DOE and the NRC as appropriate regarding the classification of tank residuals under Section 3116 of the NDAA, as well as the classification of other wastes. [?USGPO Galley End:?] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the ROD and the Idaho Cleanup Project, contact Joel Case, Team Lead, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS-1222, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, Telephone:

(208)526-6795. For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)process, please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone:

(202)586-4600 or leave a message at

(800)472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background From 1952 to 1991, DOE and its predecessor agencies reprocessed SNF at INTEC, prior to 1998 known as the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, on the INL Site. Reprocessing operations used solvent extraction systems to remove mostly uranium-235 from SNF. The waste product from the first extraction cycle of the reprocessing operation was liquid HLW mixed with hazardous materials. Subsequent extraction cycles, treatment processes, and follow-on decontamination activities generated additional liquids that were combined to form liquid SBW, which is generally much less radioactive than HLW generated from the first extraction cycle. These liquid wastes were stored in eleven 300,000-gallon below-grade storage tanks. The last campaign of SNF reprocessing at INTEC was in 1991 and HLW is no longer generated at INTEC. From 1963 to 1998, DOE processed HLW and some SBW through calcination that converted the liquid waste into a dry powder calcine. Additional SBW was processed by calcination from 1998 to 2000. At present, approximately 4,400 cubic meters of HLW calcine remain stored in six bin sets (a series of reinforced concrete vaults, each containing three to seven stainless steel storage bins), and approximately one million gallons of SBW remain in three 300,000 gallon below-grade tanks. Liquid SBW and newly generated liquid waste

(NGLW)has continued to accumulate in the tanks from the calcination process, decontamination, and other activities. NGLW continued to be collected in the tank farm tanks from a number of sources at INTEC ( *e.g.,* laboratory drains, snow melt, sumps, and evaporator operations) until September 2005 and is now being stored in other permitted storage tanks. As a result of litigation, DOE and the State of Idaho reached an agreement in 1995 referred to as the Idaho Settlement Agreement/Consent Order (Settlement Agreement) that, among other things, provides for DOE to complete calcination of SBW liquid wastes by a target date of December 31, 2012. Although the agreement requires treatment of SBW by calcination, it also provides for modifying this requirement if supported by analysis and decisions under NEPA. The agreement also sets a target date of December 31, 2035, for treating all HLW and SBW to be “road-ready” for shipment out of Idaho. In 1997, DOE issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS to evaluate the environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives for treating Idaho HLW calcine, SBW, associated radioactive waste such as NGLW, and for the disposition of related HLW Program facilities at INTEC. The State of Idaho participated as a cooperating agency in the development of the EIS to support the Settlement Agreement and to facilitate the EIS review process. In January 2000, DOE issued the Draft *Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Environmental Impact Statement* (Draft EIS) (DOE/EIS-0287D) for public review and comment. Subsequently, DOE and the State of Idaho received approximately 1,000 comments on the Draft EIS and considered those comments while revising the EIS. DOE issued the *Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement* (Final EIS) (DOE/EIS-0287) in October 2002. The Final EIS presents the analysis of a proposed action containing two sets of alternatives:

(1)*Waste processing alternatives* for treating, storing and disposing of liquid SBW and NGLW stored in below-grade tanks and solid HLW calcine stored in bin sets at the INTEC on the INL Site; and

(2)*facility disposition alternatives* for final disposition of facilities directly related to the HLW Program after their missions are complete, including any new facilities necessary to implement the waste processing alternatives. After the Final EIS was issued, DOE conducted four workshops to inform the public about the five technologies that the DOE was considering for treatment of the SBW with the preferred disposition at WIPP. The five technologies were Direct Vitrification, Cesium Ion Exchange with a grout waste form, Calcination with Maximum Achievable Control Technology upgrades, Direct Evaporation, and Steam Reforming. Workshops were held from March 13 to April 28, 2003, in Jackson, Wyoming, and Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, and Fort Hall, Idaho. In addition, briefings were held with individual stakeholders through June 2003. The public was given the opportunity to provide comments on all technologies presented through August 31, 2003, via e-mail or regular mail. During the workshops and briefings, DOE informed the public that the DOE strategy was to select one of the five technologies for treatment of the SBW. Subsequently, DOE modified this strategy by incorporating the requirement for a contractor to propose a treatment technology for SBW in a draft Request for Proposals

(RFP)for the Idaho Cleanup Project

(ICP)contract. At public meetings of the Idaho Environmental Management Citizens Advisory Board (CAB), public meetings conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in Idaho, and other meetings with local stakeholders, DOE informed the public that the DOE would identify a preferred treatment technology for SBW after the contract was awarded. At these meetings, DOE also informed the public that they would have an opportunity to provide comments on the draft RFP. DOE issued the draft RFP for the ICP contract for comment in February 2004. The draft RFP required bidders to propose technologies for treating SBW for disposal at WIPP and an alternative technical approach to prepare this waste for disposal as HLW in a geologic repository for SNF/HLW if this waste could not be disposed of at WIPP. The RFP also included the DOE strategy to meet the settlement agreement milestones for HLW calcine, facilities disposition, and segregating the NGLW from the Tank Farm Facility to other storage by September 30, 2005. DOE responded to comments received on the draft RFP and issued the final RFP in July 2004. On October 28, 2004, the NDAA was enacted. Among other provisions of the Act, section 3116 of this NDAA provides that certain wastes from reprocessing is not HLW if the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary), in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), determines that the criteria in 3116 have been met. Section 3116 provides that with respect to materials stored at a DOE site in Idaho, which activities are regulated by Idaho pursuant to closure plans or permits issued by the State, the term “high-level radioactive waste” does not include radioactive waste resulting from the reprocessing of SNF if the Secretary, in consultation with the NRC, makes certain determinations. Section 3116 is related to the requirements for the INTEC Tank Farm closure; therefore, tank closure will be addressed in an amended ROD in coordination with the Secretary's determination. In July 2005, DOE issued a SA (DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) that documented DOE's review of changes in the proposed action and new information obtained ( *e.g.,* updated waste inventory) since the 2002 Final EIS was issued. Based on the analysis in the SA, DOE determined that there were no substantial changes in the proposed action and no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the proposed action or its impacts, and that a supplemental EIS was not required. DOE then issued a **Federal Register** Notice (70 FR 44598, August 3, 2005) that announced steam reforming as DOE's preferred treatment technology for SBW. II. Waste Processing Alternatives Considered The Final EIS analyzed six waste processing alternatives for HLW calcine, SBW, and NGLW: No Action; Continued Current Operations; Separations with three treatment options; Non-Separations with four treatment options; Minimum INEEL Processing; and Direct Vitrification with two treatment options. These alternatives are briefly described as follows: No Action Alternative Under this alternative, the New Waste Calcining Facility

(NWCF)calciner would remain in standby, the SBW would remain in the Tank Farm, and the calcine would remain in the bin sets indefinitely. Continued Current Operations Alternative This alternative involves calcining the SBW and adding it to the bin sets, where it would be stored indefinitely with calcined HLW. Under this alternative, the NWCF calciner would remain in standby pending receipt of a RCRA permit from the State of Idaho and upgrades to air emission controls required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Separations Alternative This alternative comprises three treatment options, each of which would use a chemical separations process, such as solvent extraction, to divide the SBW and calcine into fractions suitable for disposal in either a geologic repository or a low-level waste disposal facility, depending on waste characteristics. Separating the radionuclides in the waste into fractions would decrease the amount of waste that would have to be shipped to a geologic repository, saving repository space and reducing disposal costs. The three waste treatment options under the Separations Alternative are described below. 1. Full Separations Option This option would separate the radioisotopes in the SBW and the HLW calcine into high-level and low-level waste fractions. The HLW fraction would be vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, placed in stainless steel canisters, and stored onsite until shipped to a storage facility or geologic repository. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste fraction on site, or at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal facility. 2. Planning Basis Option This option reflects previously announced DOE decisions and agreements with the State of Idaho regarding the management of HLW and SBW. The NWCF calciner would remain in standby, pending receipt of a RCRA permit from the State and upgrades to air emission controls required by EPA. It is similar to the Full Separations Option, except that, prior to separation, the SBW would be calcined and stored in the bin sets along with the HLW calcine. After separations, the HLW fraction would be vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, placed in stainless steel canisters, and stored onsite until shipped to a storage facility or geologic repository. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste fraction at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal facility. 3. Transuranic Separations Option This option would consist of separating the HLW and SBW into two fractions. The resulting fractions would be managed as TRU and low-level waste. There would be no HLW after separations under this option. The TRU fraction would be solidified, packaged, and shipped to WIPP for disposal. DOE would dispose of the low-level waste fraction on site or at an offsite DOE or commercial low-level waste disposal facility. Non-Separations Alternative This alternative includes four treatment options for solidifying HLW calcine and SBW. In the Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option and Direct Cement Waste Option, SBW would be removed from the Tank Farm and, after receipt of a RCRA permit from the State and upgrades to air emission controls required by the EPA, treated in the NWCF calciner. In the Early Vitrification Option and Steam Reforming Option, SBW would be retrieved from the Tank Farm and sent directly to a treatment facility. The four treatment options are briefly described as follows: 1. Hot Isostatic Pressed Waste Option Under this option, SBW would be calcined and added to the 4,400 cubic meters of HLW calcine currently stored in the bin sets. HLW and SBW calcine would then be treated in a high pressure, high temperature process that would convert the calcine into a glass-ceramic waste form. The final product would be packaged for storage and subsequent disposal in a geologic repository. 2. Direct Cement Waste Option Under this option the remaining SBW would be calcined and placed in the bin sets. HLW and SBW calcine would then be retrieved, mixed with cement, poured into stainless-steel canisters, and cured at elevated temperature and pressure. The canisters would be placed in storage for subsequent disposal in a geologic repository. Some secondary waste ( *e.g.,* tank farm heels) would be treated and sent to WIPP. 3. Early Vitrification Option This option would involve vitrifying both the HLW calcine and the SBW into a glass-like solid. The vitrified SBW would be sent to WIPP for disposal and the vitrified HLW would be placed in interim storage pending disposal in a geologic repository. 4. Steam Reforming Option This option would involve treatment of SBW by steam reforming. The central feature of the steam reforming process is the reformer, a fluidized bed reactor in which steam is used as the fluidizing gas. A solid, remote-handled waste form consisting of primarily inorganic salts is produced that is similar in form to HLW calcine. This option also includes packaging of HLW calcine without additional treatment for shipment to a geologic repository. Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative This alternative would minimize the amount of waste treatment at the INEEL by using the vitrification facility planned for the DOE Hanford Site in the State of Washington. The HLW calcine would be placed into shipping containers and sent to the Hanford Site where it would be vitrified. The SBW would be treated at INTEC where it would be separated into fractions in an ion exchange column to remove cesium. The HLW fraction would be packaged and sent to the Hanford Site for treatment with the calcine. The remaining TRU fraction would be grouted and disposed of at WIPP. Direct Vitrification Alternative This alternative includes two treatment options: Vitrification without Calcine Separations and Vitrification with Calcine Separations. The option to vitrify SBW and calcine without separations would be similar to the Early Vitrification Option. The option to vitrify SBW and the HLW fraction from calcine separations would be similar to the Full Separations Option. Under either option, SBW would be retrieved from the Tank Farm, vitrified, and disposed of in an appropriate disposal facility. Under the Vitrification with Calcine Separations Option, calcine would be retrieved from the bin sets, chemically separated into a HLW fraction to be vitrified and a low-level waste

(LLW)fraction to be grouted. Under the Vitrification without Calcine Separations Option, calcine would be directly vitrified. Under either option, vitrified HLW would be stored pending disposal in a geologic repository. Under either option, DOE would segregate NGLW from the SBW. The post-2005 NGLW could be vitrified in the same facility as the SBW or DOE could construct a separate facility to grout the NGLW. The vitrified or grouted waste would be packaged and disposed of as low-level or TRU waste, depending on its characteristics. Preferred Waste Processing Alternatives From the range of waste processing alternatives/options analyzed, two Preferred Alternatives were identified in the Final EIS, one by DOE and one by the State of Idaho. The Preferred Alternatives were identified after consideration of public comment and the following factors: Technical maturity, environment, safety and health (ES&H), cost, schedule, and programmatic risk. The DOE Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS for waste processing was to implement the proposed action by selecting from among the action alternatives, options, and technologies analyzed in the Final EIS. The selection of any one of, or combination of, technologies or options used to implement the proposed action would be based on the performance criteria of technical maturity, ES&H, consideration of public comment, cost, schedule and programmatic risk. Options excluded from DOE's preferred alternative were storage of calcine in bin sets for an indefinite period of time (analyzed under the Continued Current Operations Alternative), shipment of calcine to the Hanford Site for treatment (analyzed under the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative), and disposal of mixed-LLW at INEEL (analyzed under multiple alternatives). On August 3, 2005, after the Final EIS was issued, DOE published a **Federal Register** Notice (70 FR 44598) identifying steam reforming as its preferred treatment technology for SBW. Steam Reforming is one of the options under the Non-Separations Alternative in the Final EIS. The State of Idaho Preferred Alternative identified in the Final EIS for waste processing was the Direct Vitrification Alternative. The State of Idaho preferred vitrification based on the belief that it was the treatment alternative with the lowest technical and regulatory uncertainty for meeting waste removal goals and provided a clear baseline for fulfilling the objectives of removal of waste from Idaho within the timelines envisioned by the Settlement Agreement. The State of Idaho was willing to consider other waste treatment options, if they were comparable or better than the Direct Vitrification Alternative in terms of environmental impact, schedule and/or cost. III. Facility Disposition Alternatives Considered The Final EIS analyzed six facility disposition alternatives: No Action, Clean Closure, Performance-Based Closure, Closure to Landfill Standards, Performance-Based Closure with Class A Grout Disposal, and Performance-Based Closure with Class C Grout Disposal. These alternatives reflect different ways to address the final risk component of the proposed action and close facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC after their missions are complete. These alternatives differ in the degree to which land is considered “cleaned up” and in the type of use that could be made of the land as a result. These alternatives are briefly described as follows: No Action Alternative Under this alternative, DOE would not close the facilities identified in the Final EIS. Nevertheless, over the period of analysis through 2035, many of the facilities could be placed in an industrially safe condition (deactivated). Surveillance and maintenance of facilities would be performed to ensure the safety and health of workers and the public until 2095. For purposes of analysis, DOE assumed that institutional controls to protect human health and the environment would not be in effect after 2095. Clean Closure Alternative Under this alternative, hazardous wastes and radiological contaminants, including contaminated equipment, would be removed from the site or treated so the hazardous and radiological contaminants are indistinguishable from background concentrations. Performance-Based Closure Alternative Under this alternative, contamination would remain that is below the levels that would impact human health and the environment as established by applicable regulations ( *e.g.,* RCRA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)), and by DOE Orders. Once the performance-based levels are achieved, the unit/facility is considered closed according to RCRA and/or DOE requirements. The residual contaminants would no longer pose an unacceptable risk to workers, the public, or the environment. Closure methods would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Closure to Landfill Standards Alternative Under this alternative, the facilities would be closed as established by regulations such as RCRA or CERCLA, and by DOE Orders for closure of landfills. Once the wastes within tanks, vaults, and piping are removed to the extent practicable and the remaining residuals are stabilized, protection of the public, workers, and the environment would be ensured by installing an engineered cap, installing a groundwater monitoring system, and providing post-closure monitoring. Care of the waste containment system would be provided, appropriate for the type of contaminants. Also, a landfill closure would include post closure activities such as monitoring and plans for appropriate response/corrective actions to be taken in the event of migration of contaminants above health based action levels. Performance-Based Closure With Class A Grout Disposal Alternative This is one of two alternatives that would accommodate the potential use of the Tank Farm and bin sets for disposal of the low-level waste fraction. These facilities would be closed as described above for the Performance-Based Closure Alternative. Following completion of those activities, the Tank Farm or bin sets would be used to dispose of low-level waste Class A-type grout (suitable for near surface disposal and would have radioactive concentrations in the grout that are less than Class A concentration limits specified in NRC regulation 10 CFR 61.55). Performance-Based Closure With Class C Grout Disposal Alternative This alternative would also accommodate the potential use of the Tank Farm and bin sets for disposal of the low-level waste fraction. The facility would be closed as described above for the Performance-Based Closure Alternative. Following completion of those activities, the Tank Farm or bin sets would be used to dispose of low-level waste Class C-type grout (suitable for near surface disposal but would have higher radioactive concentrations in the grout than Class A-type grout, but would not exceed Class C concentration limits specified in 10 CFR 61.55). Preferred Facility Disposition Alternative In the Final EIS, both DOE and the State of Idaho identified performance-based closure methods as the Preferred Alternative for disposition of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC. These methods encompass three of the six facility disposition alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS: Clean Closure, Performance-Based Closure, and Closure to Landfill Standards. Performance-based closure methods would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations and DOE Orders. Also, as analyzed in the Final EIS, consistent with the objectives and requirements of DOE Order 430.1B, *Real Property Asset Management* (previously DOE Order 430.1A, *Life Cycle Management* ), and DOE Order 435.1 and Manual 435.1-1, *Radioactive Waste Management and its Manual* , all newly constructed facilities necessary to implement the waste processing alternatives would be designed and constructed consistent with measures that facilitate clean closure. Therefore, the preferred alternative for disposition of new facilities is clean closure. DOE and the State of Idaho weighed several factors in selecting the Preferred Alternative for facility disposition, including size and complexity of facilities, volume of waste streams generated during facility disposition, residual waste/contaminant risk reduction, technical and economic feasibility, and protection of the workers, public and environment. IV. Environmentally Preferable Alternative The Final EIS presents the environmental impacts for 14 areas of interest for the waste processing alternatives and the facility disposition alternatives. DOE considered those impacts in its evaluation of the environmentally preferable alternatives as described below. Waste Processing In 9 of the 14 areas of interest, the Final EIS indicates little or no environmental impact would occur under all of the action alternatives. In the remaining 5 areas analyzed (air, traffic and transportation, health and safety, waste and materials, and facility accidents), the results indicate short-term impacts from routine exposures, but they are small and do not differ significantly among action alternatives. Under normal operations, none of the waste processing action alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS would result in large short-term or long-term impacts to human health or the environment. Also, none of the action alternatives would result in appreciably different impacts on historic, cultural and natural resources. Under normal operations, the risk to workers and the public in terms of anticipated latent cancer fatalities over the life cycle of any waste treatment alternative (including No Action) would be less than one. Under the No Action and Continued Current Operations waste treatment alternatives, however, waste would remain in storage at INTEC indefinitely and would result in continued long-term risks. Under the No Action Alternative liquid SBW and solid HLW calcine would remain in storage indefinitely, and under the Continued Current Operations Alternative liquid SBW would be calcined, but the calcine would remain stored in the bin sets indefinitely. Though much of the radioactivity in the liquid SBW and solid HLW calcine would decay during the first 500 years, the material would continue to present a long-term risk to human health and the environment from potential releases of both radiological and hazardous waste. Waste processing alternatives that result in indefinite waste storage exhibit the longest window of vulnerability to accidental releases and therefore the highest anticipated risk of environmental impact. The Final EIS shows that, although unlikely, the estimated probability of the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident for the No Action and Continued Current Operations Alternatives is a factor of nine more likely than the comparable accidents for the other waste treatment alternatives that place waste in a road-ready form over a 35-year period. For these reasons, any of the waste treatment alternatives that place SBW and calcine in a waste form suitable for disposal would be environmentally preferable compared to the No Action and Continued Current Operations Alternatives. Facilities Disposition The Final EIS also evaluates the impacts of the facilities disposition alternatives. Under normal operations, the risk to workers and the public in terms of anticipated latent cancer fatalities over the life cycle of any facility disposition alternative would be less than one. Clean closure of facilities would restore the land to a condition that “presents no risk to workers or the public” and would be environmentally preferable in the long-term, but such action also would pose the highest short-term risk to workers because clean closure would require the most activity and result in the most impacts. Performance-based closure of facilities would also be protective of the public and environment in the short- and long-term, but would balance the risk to workers by tailoring activity to risk reduction. Under the facilities disposition No Action alternative, it is assumed for analytical purposes that institutional control would be lost after 2095. After that date, access would be uncontrolled, natural processes would degrade the facilities, and they could also be breached and the contents dispersed by human and animal activity. The deteriorating facilities would present some risk to the environment and human health over a long, indefinite period of time. It is estimated that 270 latent cancer fatalities could result from seismic induced failure of a degraded calcine bin set after 500 years. Also, the likelihood of an external event resulting in a release would increase over time. The maximum reasonably foreseeable impact from accidents during implementation of the facility disposition action alternatives result in an estimated two fatalities from non-radiological hazards, such as trauma, fire, spills, or falls, during clean closure of the Tank Farm. For these reasons, any of the facility disposition alternatives that actively close facilities under environmentally based standards would be environmentally preferable to the No Action Alternative. V.A. Comments on the Final EIS DOE received two letters commenting on the Final EIS. By letter dated November 18, 2002, the EPA raised four issues:

(1)Reclassification of HLW and the nature and extent of separations or decontamination necessary to meet the requirements of DOE Manual 435.1-1, *Radioactive Waste Management Manual* , which poses programmatic risk due to ongoing litigation and regulatory uncertainty,

(2)the viability of the Minimum INEEL Processing Alternative (option of treating waste at Hanford),

(3)DOE identifying a broad scoped Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, which the EPA said did not meet the objectives of NEPA, and

(4)the viability of the calciner as an alternative, its cost, and use of the EIS to delay closure of the calciner. DOE provides the following responses to the EPA comments: 1. The Final EIS presents the analysis of the potential environmental impacts of retrieving and treating HLW, SBW, NGLW, and facilities disposition using various technologies and managing the wastes as either HLW, TRU waste, or LLW. Moreover, the analysis is not based on particular waste classification but is based on the estimated volume and radioisotopic content of the HLW, SBW, NGLW, and waste from facilities disposition. By preparing the analysis in a manner that is not dependent on waste classification, DOE has mitigated the impact of litigation and reduced the programmatic risks. Specifically, for SBW some EIS alternatives included an evaluation of retrieved SBW as HLW to be treated for disposal at a geologic repository for SNF/HLW; some alternatives evaluate retrieved SBW as TRU to be treated and disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; and some alternatives evaluate SBW to be separated into HLW, TRU waste and LLW fractions. Moreover, DOE will manage the SBW to permit disposal at either WIPP or at a geologic repository for SNF/HLW and will evaluate the waste form to determine its suitability for disposal. 2. The Final EIS presents an alternative that would treat INL Site waste at Hanford by taking advantage of a national investment in significant waste treatment capabilities and facilities in the State of Washington. Both the INL Site and Hanford are DOE facilities in the Northwest region of the U.S. and have wastes derived from similar sources. INL Site wastes could be treated using treatment processes being developed at Hanford prior to being transported to WIPP or a geologic repository for SNF/HLW for disposal. Therefore, DOE believes this alternative is reasonable and analyzed the alternative as required by NEPA. Further, DOE believes it is important to inform national and state decision makers of this alternative for treating INL Site wastes at Hanford, especially in view of the costs and risk involved in developing the same capabilities at two sites about 550 miles apart. The Final EIS presents associated risks, including transportation, and considers issues associated with meeting Hanford's schedule for waste treatment of Hanford waste. 3. Regarding EPA's concern with DOE's broad expression of its preferred alternative in the Final EIS, DOE believes that the phased decision making process under this EIS not only meets the objectives of NEPA, but also includes meaningful public participation opportunities that substantially exceed the applicable regulatory requirements. DOE identified its preferred alternative in the Final EIS as follows: “DOE's preferred waste processing alternative is to implement the proposed action by selecting from among the action alternatives, options and technologies analyzed in this EIS. The selection of any one of, or combination of, technologies or options used to implement the proposed action would be based on performance criteria that include risk, cost, time, and compliance factors.” DOE did not identify a preference for a specific SBW treatment technology in this expression of preferred alternative. Rather, DOE first provided additional opportunities for public participation as part of its evaluation of the alternative technologies analyzed in the EIS, which included steam reforming, the technology that DOE is selecting today. Under this phased decision making strategy, after issuing the Final EIS, DOE conducted four public workshops to inform the public about the five technologies that DOE was considering. Further, DOE provided additional public comment opportunities on the draft RFP for the Idaho Cleanup Project, which required bidders to propose technologies for SBW treatment. Finally, DOE announced its preference for a specific SBW treatment technology, steam reforming, in a **Federal Register** Notice (70 FR 44598; August 3, 2005), and again provided the opportunity for the public to comment. Section V.B. summarizes the comments received and DOE's responses. 4. DOE has determined that the alternative of reconfiguring the calciner in the New Waste Calcining Facility with Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT)upgrades is reasonable because calcination is a proven process for reliably placing liquid HLW and SBW into a powder form. The Final EIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of operating the calciner with MACT air emission upgrades. Compliance requirements and potential conflicts with state and Federal law are also considered. Prematurely taking irreversible closure actions on the calciner would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS. In a November 21, 2002 letter, the INEEL CAB raised some of the same issues expressed by the EPA. In addition, the CAB recommended that DOE re-issue the Final EIS or issue a supplemental EIS and that DOE provide meaningful opportunities for the public to review and comment on the selection of technologies. DOE provides the following response to the INEEL CAB (Now the INL EM CAB) comments: As described in Section I of this ROD, DOE prepared a Supplement Analysis to examine whether a supplemental EIS is required. Based on the Supplement Analysis, DOE determined that there has been no change in the proposed action or significant new information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns that would require DOE to re-issue the Final EIS or prepare a supplemental EIS. If DOE were to re-issue the Final EIS or prepare a supplemental EIS that identified a preferred alternative focusing on a single technology, it would not enhance the detail or precision of the environmental analysis. As part of continued public involvement, DOE held workshops in 2003 to obtain public input on the technologies being considered for treatment of the SBW. Further, as described above, DOE provided meaningful opportunities for the public to participate in identifying their concerns related to the proposed technologies for treatment of the SBW in the DOE technology selection process. The public also was provided an opportunity to comment on the draft RFP. DOE believes that these public participation opportunities, which exceed DOE's obligations under NEPA, were responsive to the CAB's comment. V.B. Comments in Response to the August 3, 2005, **Federal Register** Notice of Preferred Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Technology (70 FR 44599), That Invited Public Comments on DOE's Preferred Treatment Technology DOE received comments from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, INL EM Citizens Advisory Board, Coalition 21, Snake River Alliance, Mr. Barry O'Brian, Mr. G.V. Wieg, and Mr. D. Siemer in response to the August 3, 2005, Notice. The comments in these documents did not raise any new issues relevant to environmental concerns that were not addressed in the Final EIS. The commentors expressed five general areas of concern:

(1)Several commentors expressed concerns regarding the disposition uncertainty for the treated SBW and recommended deferral of the SBW treatment decision until a waste determination is made for the SBW and a disposal facility is identified ( *i.e.* , WIPP or a geologic repository for SNF/HLW). Commentors also stated if the Department does make a SBW treatment technology selection, the selected treatment method should be neutral with regard to repository requirements;

(2)Several commentors questioned whether DOE adequately considered all the alternatives for the treatment of SBW and some suggested that vitrification is the best technology for the treatment of SBW;

(3)There were several comments related to the type and availability of shipping containers and the mode of transportation;

(4)Several commentors expressed concerns related to the design of the steam reformer facility and the type of product created, and whether that waste form can be properly disposed of; and

(5)Some commentors recommended that facilities disposition decisions should be addressed in a future, separate, ROD. DOE provides the following responses to the comments received: 1. DOE believes that delaying the SBW treatment technology decision does not support both the Department's and the State of Idaho's priority to reduce potential risk to the Snake River Plain Aquifer. In addition, the product resulting from steam reforming is neutral regarding repository requirements and can be integrated with the calcine disposition path if it cannot be disposed of at WIPP. 2. During the NEPA process, DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of the range of reasonable alternatives, including vitrification, in the preparation of the Final EIS. DOE identified steam reforming as its preferred treatment technology for SBW after consideration of public comment and the following factors: Technical maturity, environment, safety and health (ES&H), schedule, and programmatic risk, as presented in the Final EIS. DOE also considered the cost of the various alternatives. This technology supports the Settlement Agreement milestone to treat SBW by December 31, 2012 (see Section VII of this ROD, Basis for Decision). 3. DOE evaluated the environmental impacts of transportation in the Final EIS, which shows that transportation risks would be small. It should be noted that the Department of Transportation regulates the shipment of the waste while the NRC regulates the packaging of the material for shipment. DOE will ship all wastes in accordance with applicable regulations regardless of the mode of shipment. There are no known regulatory issues associated with the packaging and shipping of the reformed product. 4. The steam reformer facility will be designed and constructed to meet all applicable regulatory and safety requirements ( *e.g.* , emission and radiological controls). DOE must also obtain the appropriate permits to construct and operate the facility. Presently, DOE is planning to create a carbonate waste product from the steam reformer which is similar in form to the HLW calcine. DOE anticipates the solid waste form will be acceptable for disposal at WIPP, or if not acceptable at WIPP, would be integrated into the strategy for management of HLW calcine. 5. The Department believes it is prudent to proceed with facilities disposition decisions at INTEC to reduce the overall risk to the Snake River Plain Aquifer and to support the cleanup at the INL Site. VI. Decision DOE plans a phased decision making process. This first ROD focuses on SBW treatment, NGLW, facilities disposition excluding the Tank Farm Facility and bin sets closure, and DOE's strategy for HLW calcine. *SBW Treatment:* The existing INTEC Evaporators will continue to operate to reduce SBW volume to enable DOE to cease use of the Tank Farm tanks by December 31, 2012, pursuant to the Notice of Noncompliance Consent Order between DOE and State of Idaho. DOE has decided that SBW will be treated using the steam reforming technology. The Department's preference for this treated waste is disposal as TRU waste at WIPP near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Until such time as the regulatory approvals are obtained and a determination the waste is TRU is made, the Department will manage the waste to allow disposal at WIPP or at a geologic repository for SNF and HLW. The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's selection of steam reforming as the technology for solidifying remaining INTEC Tank Farm liquids, provided DOE obtains required permits for its treatment facility and post-treatment storage, and produces a waste form acceptable for disposal at a repository outside Idaho. *NGLW:* NGLW is no longer being sent to the Tank Farm and is being stored in other permitted storage tanks. This NGLW may be treated in the same facility and with the same technology used to treat SBW, or grouted in a facility constructed for that purpose, and disposed of as either low-level or TRU waste, depending on its radioactive waste characteristics, at an offsite DOE or commercial facility. The State of Idaho concurs with DOE's decision to segregate newly generated liquid waste at INTEC and manage it in compliance with the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act and other legal requirements. *Facilities Disposition:* DOE has decided to conduct performance-based closure of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC, excluding the tank farm and bin sets, once their missions are complete. Performance based closure activities will be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations and DOE Orders. The method of closure for specific facilities will be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on risk, and may include closure to landfill standards. Newly constructed waste processing facilities, such as the steam reforming treatment facility, at INTEC necessary to implement the decisions in this ROD will be designed consistent with clean closure methods in accordance with the objectives and requirements of DOE Order 430.1B, *Real Property Asset Management* (previously DOE Order 430.1A, *Life Cycle Management* ), and DOE Order 435.1 and Manual 435.1-1, *Radioactive Waste Management and its Manual* and closed when their missions are complete regardless of the characteristics of the waste they treat. These closure activities are analyzed in the Final EIS. The State concurs with the performance-based closure of existing facilities directly related to the high-level waste program at INTEC, once their missions are complete, subject to the State's separate approval of individual closure plans under the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act and compliance with section 3116 of the NDAA, where applicable. The State also concurs with DOE's decision to clean close newly constructed waste processing facilities. *HLW Calcine:* Consistent with DOE's *Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL* , DOE's strategy for HLW calcine is to retrieve the calcine for disposal outside the State of Idaho. Accordingly, DOE will develop calcine retrieval demonstration processes and conduct risk-based analyses, including disposal options, focused on the calcine stored at the INTEC. This strategy will culminate in the issuance of a future ROD, as discussed below. The State of Idaho will provide additional input on DOE's remaining decisions for calcine treatment, which DOE must make by December 31, 2009 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Future RODs DOE will issue an amended ROD addressing closure of the Tank Farm in coordination with the Secretary's determination, in consultation with the NRC, as to whether or not the waste residuals in the tank system, the tanks, vaults, piping and associated ancillary equipment are HLW in accordance with Section 3116 the NDAA. That determination and amended ROD are expected to be issued in calendar year 2006. The State of Idaho has stated that: The State will continue to coordinate with DOE and the NRC as appropriate regarding the classification of tank residuals under Section 3116 of the NDAA, as well as the classification of other wastes. DOE plans to issue another amended ROD in 2009 that will contain DOE's decision on the final strategy for HLW calcine retrieval and the technology for additional treatment, if necessary, packaging and safe storage based on transportation and disposal requirements. Following that amended ROD, DOE would begin to manage the HLW calcine so it is ready to be moved out of Idaho for disposal by a target date of 2035, in accordance with the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Additionally, it is DOE's goal to complete calcine retrieval, packaging, additional treatment (if required) and shipping to a geologic repository for SNF/HLW by December 2035, as described in DOE's *Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL.* In addition, the amended ROD will address closure of the bin sets and their associated facilities. VII. Basis for Decision Based on the analysis in the Final EIS, all of the waste processing alternatives that treat the SBW and remove the calcine would have small environmental impacts. The long-term impacts of the No Action and Continued Current Operations alternatives ( *i.e.* , the uncertainty of leaving the SBW and calcine in storage), however, are uncertain and could be high. Implementing any of the action alternatives through the technologies or options analyzed in the Final EIS and a related SA (DOE/EIS-0287-SA-01) would eliminate the element of uncertainty and provide the most certain long-term protection of the environment. DOE's decision to use the steam reforming technology for the treatment of SBW is based on DOE's consideration of environmental impacts, programmatic needs, safety and health risks, technical viability, ability to meet regulatory requirements and agreement milestones, public comments, and cost. DOE believes steam reforming provides the best value to the Government and meets its need for treatment flexibility, acceptable cost, and probability of success. DOE's decision to defer a final decision on calcine is based on the need to continue detailed evaluation of repository performance criteria, regulatory requirements, cost, schedule, and programmatic risk. DOE's decision to implement performance-based closure methods for disposition of existing facilities directly related to the HLW Program at INTEC and plan to clean close newly constructed facilities, such as the steam reforming facility for SBW treatment, was based on the analysis of the potential environmental impacts identified in the Final EIS as well as to meet regulatory requirements, such as RCRA, and because each method of closure is determined on a case-by-case basis. DOE's decision to defer a final decision for closure of the Tank Farm was based on DOE's intent to coordinate this decision with the Secretary's determination, in consultation with the NRC, under Section 3116 of the NDAA that will allow DOE to decide the appropriate performance-based closure method. No impact resulting from normal operations under any of the alternatives or options analyzed would require specifically designed mitigation measures. DOE will, however, adopt all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm when implementing the actions described in this ROD. Those measures include employing engineering design features to address flooding, emission controls to reduce or eliminate releases of pollutants and meet regulatory requirements, maintaining a rigorous health and safety program to protect workers from radiological and chemical contaminates, and continuing efforts to reduce the generation of wastes. These decisions are also consistent with the objectives of the DOE *Environmental Management Performance Management Plan for Accelerating Cleanup at INEEL.* Issued in Washington, DC, this 13th day of December 2005. James A. Rispoli, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. E5-7497 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0009; FRL-8009-7] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Used Oil Management Standards Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1286.07, OMB Control Number 2050-0124 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), this document announces that an Information Collection Request

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

(OMB)for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 18, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0009, to

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

(2)OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Svizzero, Office of Solid Waste, Mail Code 5303W, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 703-308-0046; fax number: 703-308-8617; e-mail address: *svizzero.michael@epamail.epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 21, 2005 (70 FR 42060), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0009, which is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is

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

(202)566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Use *http://www.regulations.gov* to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in *http://www.regulations.gov* as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in *http://www.regulations.gov* . The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in *http://www.regulations.gov.* For further information about the electronic docket go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Title:* Used Oil Management Standards Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Renewal). *Abstract:* The Used Oil Management Standards, which include information collection requests, were developed in accordance with section 3014 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), which directs EPA to “promulgate regulations * * * as may be necessary to protect public health and the environment from the hazards associated with recycled oil” and, at the same time, to not discourage used oil recycling. In 1985 and 1992, EPA established mandatory regulations that govern the management of used oil (see 40 CFR part 279). To document and ensure proper handling of used oil, these regulations establish notification, testing, tracking and recordkeeping requirements for used oil transporters, processors, re-refiners, marketers, and burners. They also set standards for the prevention and cleanup of releases to the environment during storage and transit, and for the safe closure of storage units and processing and re-refining facilities to mitigate future releases and damages. EPA believes these requirements minimize potential hazards to human health and the environment from the potential mismanagement of used oil by used oil handlers, while providing for the safe recycling of used oil. Information from these information collection requirements is used to ensure compliance with the Used Oil Management Standards. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable. *Burden Statement:* The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to range from 6 minutes to 23 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. *Respondents/Affected Entities:* Entities potentially affected by this action are Business or other for profit. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 1,640. *Frequency of Response:* Biennially. *Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:* 460,286. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $22,478,000, which includes $0 annualized startup/capital costs, $10,011,000 annual O&M costs and $12,467,000 annual labor costs. There is no change in the burden estimates for this ICR. Dated: December 12, 2005. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [FR Doc. E5-7498 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8010-3] Notification of a Partially Closed Consultation of the Science Advisory Board's Homeland Security Advisory Committee

(HSAC)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)announces a partially closed consultation of the HSAC. DATES: The consultation will take place on January 30-31, 2006. ADDRESSES: This consultation will take place at the EPA's SAB Conference Center located at the Woodies Building, 1025 F Street, NW., Room 3705, Washington, DC 20004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to obtain further information regarding this announcement may contact Ms. Vivian Turner, Designated Federal Officer, by telephone:

(202)343-9697 or by e-mail at: *turner.vivian@epa.gov.* The SAB Mailing address is: U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460. General information about the SAB, as well as any updates concerning the consultation announced in this notice, may be found in the SAB Web site at: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA's Office of Water

(OW)and Office of Research and Development

(ORD)have requested a consultation with the SAB's Homeland Security Advisory Committee

(HSAC)to obtain the individual advice of the HSAC members on the development of EPA's WaterSentinel

(WS)program and Standard Analytical Methods (SAM). The WS program is being developed by the EPA in partnership with drinking water utilities and other key stakeholders in response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9. The initiative involves designing, deploying, and evaluating a model contamination warning system for drinking water security. Another essential component is the need for standardized analytical methods

(SAM)to be used by all laboratories for responding to incidents that require rapid analysis. The EPA and other Federal parties, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Geological Survey, have evaluated the suitability of existing methodologies and selected a set of methods for use by EPA and contract laboratories to analyze environmental samples in times of national emergency. The methods are limited to chemical, biological, radiochemical, and biotoxin analytes in environmental media. The purpose of the consultation is to seek early advice from the individual members of the SAB HSAC regarding the proposed approach, design, adequacy and the future implementation for the WS program and the scientific soundness and adequacy of SAM. The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice to the EPA Administrator. The SAB formed the HSAC as a subcommittee of the Chartered SAB to provide independent scientific and technical advice on matters pertaining to the environmental and health consequences of terrorism in response to an EPA request. Background on the HSAC and its charge was provided in a **Federal Register** Notice published on July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44761-44762). For this consultation, the HSAC will be augmented with experts from other SAB committees or individuals previously identified on the HSAC “Short List” (see, *http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/hsacadhoc.html* ). It is EPA's policy to follow the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA)for subcommittees of its chartered advisory committees. Accordingly, in accordance with FACA, EPA has determined that a portion of the SAB's HSAC consultation on WS will be closed to the public pursuant to section 552b(c)(9)(B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B)), which allows closure of a meeting if the “premature disclosure of [the information to be discussed] would * * * be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action * * *.” This discussion will involve sensitive national security information relating to specific water sector vulnerabilities and emergency response tactics, including sensitive information relating to intentional contamination events. Also, EPA will present detailed findings about the emergency response capabilities of public health agencies and water utilities. The disclosure of this sensitive national security information would significantly frustrate the Agency's efforts to protect the nation's drinking water systems. Therefore, pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d), I have determined that the topics identified above will concern matters that, if prematurely disclosed, would significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency actions. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B), this portion of the meeting will be closed to the public. *Availability of Meeting Materials:* The agenda and other meeting materials for this consultation will be available prior to the meeting date on the SAB Web site: *http://www.epa.gov/sab.* EPA's technical documents on the WS program may be found at: *http://www.cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/index.cfm.* EPA's technical documents on SAM may be found at: *http://www.epa.gov/ordnhsrc/pubs/reportSAM092905.pdf.* *Procedures for Providing Public Comment:* The SAB Staff Office accepts written public comments of any length, and will accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. *Oral Comments:* Requests to provide oral comments must be *in writing* (e-mail, fax or mail) and received by Ms. Turner no later than January 20, 2006 to reserve time on the January 30-31, 2006 meeting agenda. Opportunities for oral comments will be limited to five minutes per speaker. *Written Comments:* Written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office by January 20, 2006 so that the comments may be made available to the members of the HSAC for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to Ms. Turner at the contact information provided above, in the following formats: One hard copy (original signature optional), or one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format)). *Accessibility:* For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Ms. Turner at the phone number or e-mail noted above, preferably at least 10 days prior to the consultation, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: December 13, 2005. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E5-7505 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION Sunshine Act Meeting; Farm Credit Administration Board; Regular Meeting AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), that the January 12, 2006 regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board) has been rescheduled. The regular meeting of the Board will be held Friday, January 6, 2006 starting at 9 a.m. An agenda for this meeting will be published at a later date. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanette C. Brinkley, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board,

(703)883-4009, TTY

(703)883-4056. ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. Dated: December 14, 2005. Jeanette C. Brinkley, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. [FR Doc. 05-24236 Filed 12-14-05; 5:01 pm]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code

CFR