Notices. Notice

16,561 words·~75 min read·/register/2006/01/11/06-254

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

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration Intent To Request Approval From OMB of One New Public Collection of Information: TSA Claims Management Program AGENCY: Transportation Security Administration (TSA), DHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: TSA invites public comment on a new information collection requirement abstracted below that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for approval in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. DATES: Send your comments by March 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Katrina Wawer, Information Collection Specialist, Office of Transportation Security Policy, TSA-9, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 22202-4220. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Wawer at the above address or by telephone

(571)227-1995 or facsimile

(571)227-2594. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Information Collection Requirement Purpose of Data Collection The TSA Claims Management Office

(CMO)needs to collect additional certain information from claimants in order to thoroughly investigate and resolve tort claims against the agency. TSA receives approximately 2,000 tort claims per month arising from airport screening activities and other circumstances, including motor vehicle accidents and employee loss. The Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2671-2680) is the authority under which the CMO adjudicates tort claims. Description of Data Collection The data is collected whenever a citizen believes they have experienced property loss or damage, a personal injury, or other damages due to the negligence or wrongful act or omission of a TSA employee, and decides to file a Federal tort claim against TSA. Submission of a claim is entirely voluntary and initiated by citizens. The claimants (or respondents) to this collection are typically the traveling public. Currently claimants file a claim by submitting to TSA a Standard Form 95 (SF-95), which has been approved under OMB control number 1105-0008. Because TSA requires further clarifying information from claimants, it is requesting OMB approval for two additional forms for tort claims. In addition to the SF-95, claimants will be asked to complete a Supplemental Information form, which is agency specific to TSA. If, after review of these two forms, TSA determines payment is warranted, TSA will send the claimant a third form requesting banking information in order to direct payment to the claimant. Claim instructions and forms are available through the Internet at *http://www.tsaclaims.org* (also accessible via the TSA Web site at *http://www.tsa.gov).* However, currently claimants must download these forms and mail or fax them to TSA. TSA is developing an online claim submission system by which claimants may submit claims electronically. TSA is also seeking OMB approval for the online claim submission system, which, once developed, will be an option for claims submissions, in addition to the paper SF-95 and Supplemental Information forms. The online system will streamline the information collection so that claimants can input all the necessary information in one location and ensure their claims are completed sufficiently the first time. The online system will also increase TSA's efficiency in processing claims. On the Supplemental Information form, claimants are asked to provide additional claim information including:

(1)E-mail address,

(2)location of incident within the airport,

(3)airport,

(4)complete travel itinerary,

(5)whether baggage was delayed by airline

(6)why they believe TSA was negligent,

(7)whether they used a third-party baggage service,

(8)whether they were traveling under military orders, and

(9)whether they submitted claims with the airlines or insurance. If TSA determines payment is warranted, TSA sends the claimant a third form where TSA requests:

(1)Claimant signature,

(2)banking information (routing and accounting numbers), and

(3)Social Security number (required by the U.S. Treasury for all Government payments to the public pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3325). Under the current system of claims submitted by mail or fax, TSA estimates there will be approximately 28,800 respondents on an annual basis, for a total annual hour burden of 19,200 hours. Once the online system is operational, TSA estimates that out of the 28,800 annual respondents, approximately 70 percent, or 20,160, will submit claims electronically, for a total annual hour burden of 5,040 hours; and that approximately 30 percent, or 8,640, will continue to submit claims by mail or fax, for a total annual hour burden of 2,160 hours. Use of Results TSA will use all data collected from claimants to investigate and analyze tort claims against the agency to determine alleged TSA liability and to reimburse claimants when claims are approved. In some cases, TSA may use the information to identify victims of theft or to aid any criminal investigations into property theft. Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on January 5, 2006. Lisa S. Dean, Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E6-138 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5042-N-01] Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Evaluating Outcomes of HUD's Healthy Homes Grants AGENCY: Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, HUD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement concerning an evaluation of grants made under the Healthy Homes Initiative

(HHI)funded by HUD will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal. DATES: *Comments Due Date:* March 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and should be sent to Shelby Glover, Reports Liaison Officer, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter J. Ashley, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone number

(202)708-0614, extension 7595 (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed questionnaire and related information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to:

(1)Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology ( *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses). This Notice also lists the following information: *Title of Proposal:* Evaluating Outcomes of HUD's Healthy Homes Grants. *OMB Control Number:* To be assigned. *Need for the Information and Proposed Use:* The Healthy Homes Initiative, initiated in 1999, encourages a holistic approach to efficiently reducing multiple health and safety hazards in homes, including asthma triggers such as mold and other allergens, pests, lead, carbon monoxide and other indoor contaminants, and injury hazards. To date, the Department has awarded 63 grants in the categories of demonstration, education and outreach, and technical studies. HUD is interested in evaluating the outcomes of these grants to identify and highlight effective practices and significant research findings and to assess progress in achieving HHI program objectives. HUD will ask grant recipients to respond to a questionnaire, administered by telephone, on:

(a)The range of interventions and activities that have been conducted under demonstration and education and outreach grants, the effectiveness of these actions, and factors that determine effectiveness;

(b)the major research findings from technical studies and demonstration grants, and information on how these findings are being disseminated and applied;

(c)the extent to which grants have resulted in local infrastructure being developed to continue healthy-housing related activities after completion of the grant; and

(d)results of healthy-housing activities supported through interagency agreements with other federal agencies. To minimize the burden on grantees, HUD will, where applicable, enter available information from each grantee's quarterly progress reports and final project report into the questionnaire responses prior to administering the questionnaire by telephone, at which time the information will be confirmed. *Agency Form Numbers:* None. *Members of Affected Public:* Managers of programs funded by grants provided under the Healthy Homes Initiative. *Total Burden Estimate:* Number of respondents: 2.5 for each of the 63 grantees = 157.5; Frequency of responses = 1; Hours per response = 4 (including preparation); Burden hours: total estimate = 630. *Status of the Proposed Information Collection:* New request. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. Dated: January 4, 2006. Warren Friedman, Deputy Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. [FR Doc. E6-133 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-70-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Review of Mt. Graham Red Squirrel and Little Colorado Spinedace AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of review. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces a 5-year review of the Mt. Graham red squirrel ( *Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis* ) and the Little Colorado spinedace ( *Lepidomeda vittata* ) under 4(c)(2)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act). The purpose of reviews conducted under this section of the Act is to ensure that the classification of species as threatened or endangered on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.12) is accurate. The 5-year review is an assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. DATES: To allow adequate time to conduct this review, information submitted for our consideration must be received on or before April 11, 2006. However, we will continue to accept information about any listed species at any time. ADDRESSES: Information submitted on these species should be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the following address. Information received in response to this notice of review will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at the same addresses. Information regarding the Mt. Graham red squirrel and Little Colorado spinedace should be sent to the Field Supervisor, Attention 5-year Review, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the Mt. Graham red squirrel, contact Thetis Gamberg at the Arizona Ecological Services Tucson Sub-office, 201 North Bonita, Suite 141, Tucson, AZ 85745, 520-670-6150 x 231, *thetis_gamberg@fws.gov.* For the Little Colorado spinedace, contact Shaula Hedwall at the Arizona Ecological Services Flagstaff Sub-office, 323 North Leroux, Suite 101, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, 928-226-0614 x 103, *shaula_hedwall@fws.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why Is a 5-Year Review Conducted? Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B) and the provisions of subsections

(a)and (b), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not any species should be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to threatened (downlisted), or from threatened to endangered (uplisted). The 5-year review is an assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. Therefore, we are requesting submission of any new information (best scientific and commercial data) on the following species since their original listings as either endangered (Mt. Graham red squirrel) or threatened (Little Colorado spinedace). If the present classification of either of these species is not consistent with the best scientific and commercial information available, the Service will recommend whether or not a change is warranted in the Federal classification of the species. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate final rule-making process. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the **Federal Register** announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active review of the Mt. Graham red squirrel and Little Colorado spinedace. What Information Is Considered in the Review? A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. These reviews will consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review of each species, such as: A. Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; B. Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability; C. Conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species; D. Threat status and trends (see five factors under heading “How do we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened?”); and E. Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and improved analytical methods. Specific Information Requested for the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel We specifically request information regarding the species' life history, habitat requirements, and distribution. We also request information on threats, including predation, competition, and habitat loss. We further request information on designated critical habitat. Specific Information Requested for the Little Colorado Spinedace We specifically request information regarding the current distribution of populations and evaluation of the degree of habitat protection for each population, and information regarding management plans and techniques for improving and maintaining spinedace habitat. We also are particularly interested in recent information regarding conservation measures that have been implemented to benefit the species. How Are the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel and Little Colorado Spinedace Currently Listed? The List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants

(List)is found in 50 CFR 17.11 (wildlife) and 17.12 (plants). Amendments to the List through final rules are published in the **Federal Register** . The List is also available on our Internet site at *http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html#Species* . In Table 1 below, we provide a summary of the listing information for the species under active review. Table 1.—Summary of the Listing Information for the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel and Little Colorado Spinedace Common name Scientific name Status Where listed Final listing rule Mt. Graham red squirrel *Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis* Endangered U.S.A. (Arizona, California) 51 FR 10842 (31-MAR-1986). Little Colorado spinedace *Lepidomeda vittata* Threatened U.S.A. (Arizona) 52 FR 35054 (16-SEPT-1987). Definitions Related to This Notice The following definitions are provided to assist those persons who contemplate submitting information regarding the species being reviewed: A. *Species* includes any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate, which interbreeds when mature. B. *Endangered* means any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. C. *Threatened* means any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. How Do We Determine Whether a Species Is Endangered or Threatened? Section 4(a)(1) of the Act establishes that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors: A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; C. Disease or predation; D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. What Could Happen as a Result of This Review? If we find that there is new information concerning Mt. Graham red squirrel or Little Colorado spinedace indicating a change in classification may be warranted, we may propose a new rule that could do one of the following:

(a)Reclassify the species from endangered to threatened (downlist);

(b)reclassify the species from threatened to endangered (uplist); or

(c)remove the species from the List. If we determine that a change in classification is not warranted, then these species will remain on the List under their current status. Public Solicitation of New Information We request any new information concerning the status of Mt. Graham red squirrel and Little Colorado spinedace. See “What information is considered in the review?” heading for specific criteria. Information submitted should be supported by documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the supporting record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we may withhold from the supporting record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will not consider anonymous comments, however. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Authority This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ). Dated: November 1, 2005. Larry G. Bell, Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E6-139 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Aga or Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of document availability for review and comment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) announces the availability of the Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Aga or Mariana Crow ( *Corvus kubaryi* ) for public review and comment. DATES: Comments on the draft revised recovery plan must be received on or before March 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft revised recovery plan are available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 (phone: 808-792-9400). Requests for copies of the draft revised recovery plan and written comments and materials regarding this plan should be addressed to the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, at the above Honolulu address. The draft revised plan is currently available on the World Wide Web at *http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html#plans.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Amidon, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above Honolulu address and telephone number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants is a primary goal of the Endangered Species Act

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and our endangered species program. Recovery means improvement of the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer required under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the measures needed for recovery. The Act requires the development of recovery plans for endangered or threatened species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of the species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that public notice, and an opportunity for public review and comment, be provided during recovery plan development. We will consider all information presented during the public comment period on each new or revised recovery plan. Substantive comments may result in changes to a recovery plan. Comments regarding recovery plan implementation may not necessarily result in changes to the recovery plans, but will be forwarded to the appropriate Federal agency or other entities so that they can take these comments into account during the course of implementing recovery actions. Individual responses to comments will not be provided. The aga or Mariana crow is native to the islands of Guam and Rota in the Mariana Archipelago of the Pacific Ocean. The aga has been listed as an endangered species by the United States since 1984, and is also listed by the governments of the Territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The last of the aga on Guam disappeared sometime in 2002 or 2003. Currently, northern Guam has a small population of 10 aga, all individuals translocated from Rota. Estimates for the island of Rota indicate that approximately 85 pairs of aga persist there, but this population is apparently in decline. Aga utilize a wide variety of forested habitats including limestone, strand, ravine, agricultural forest, and secondary forests. However, available evidence suggests that aga are most abundant in native limestone forests. On both Guam and Rota, aga nests have been found exclusively in native species of trees, which also serve as the primary foraging sources for these birds. The introduction of the exotic brown treesnake (Boiga irregularis) to the island of Guam in the late 1940's is believed to have been the primary cause of the extirpation of aga from that island. Brown treesnakes are not established on Rota. The cause of the observed decline in the aga population on Rota, as well as parallel declines in other forest birds on the island, is not well understood, but may be due to a combination of habitat loss, human persecution, and possibly introduced rats or other exotic predators. Captive propagation of the aga in mainland zoos was attempted in the 1990's, but was largely unsuccessful. Most of the captive individuals have since been released back on Guam. The translocation of individuals from Rota to Guam has proven a more viable option, and in recent years some of these birds have paired and successfully nested on Guam. Since the native aga on Guam have been extirpated, recovery of the species is now entirely dependent upon the remaining population of aga on the island of Rota. This draft revised recovery plan replaces the original recovery plan for the aga, which was published in 1990 and addressed multiple species of native forest birds of Guam and Rota. The draft revised recovery plan was developed by the Mariana Crow Recovery Team, which includes representatives from various Federal agencies, the Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' Division of Fish and Wildlife, Andersen Air Force Base, the University of Hawaii, and the University of Washington. The primary objective of this draft revised recovery plan is to establish a total of at least three viable, self-sustaining subpopulations of aga in the wild, two on Guam and one on Rota. The recovery program described in this draft revised recovery plan includes active research, habitat management, predator control, translocation, population monitoring, and community involvement. The recovery actions are designed to address threats to the aga in order to achieve the recovery goal of downlisting to threatened status and then eventually delisting (removing from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants). Public Comments Solicited We solicit written comments on the draft revised recovery plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of this plan. Authority The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f). Dated: September 28, 2005. David J. Wesley, Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on January 6, 2006. [FR Doc. E6-143 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Corrections to the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cordova Oil Spill Response Facility, Cordova, AK AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of two corrections to the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Cordova Oil Spill Response Facility, Cordova, Alaska, which was published in the **Federal Register** on December 22, 2005 (70 FR 76066-76067) and which described the proposed action. These corrections are as follows: • The two-letter abbreviation for Alaska in the Notice heading was incorrectly given as “AL.” The correct abbreviation for Alaska is AK. • The project website in the ADDRESSES section of the Notice was incorrect. The correct Web site is *http://www.cordovaresponsefacility.com* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin K'eit,

(907)586-7423. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in accordance with sections 1503.1, 1506.6 and 1508.22 of the Council of Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR, parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 *et seq.* ), Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8. Dated: January 4, 2006. Michael D. Olsen, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-140 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-030-1310-DB] Correction to Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development Project AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of correction. SUMMARY: On Monday, December 12, 2005, the Bureau of Land Management published a Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Development Project in the **Federal Register** [Vol. 70, No. 237, p. 73482]. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION on alternatives analyzed in detail contained naming errors. The correct information is as follows: The Atlantic Rim DEIS analyzed four alternatives in detail: 1. The Proposed Action Alternative; 2. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, which means the project as proposed would be rejected by the BLM; 3. Alternative B—Phased development; and, 4. Alternative C—Special protection of sensitive of sensitive resources. “The agency's preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative B and C.” These corrected alternative names also correct references to the alternatives for the remainder of the notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Simons, Project Lead or Mr. Mark Storzer, Field Manager, BLM Rawlins Field Office. Mr. Simons and Mr. Storzer may be reached at

(307)328-4200. Dated: December 27, 2005. Robert A. Bennett, State Director. [FR Doc. E6-158 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WO-350-1430-PN] Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

(PEIS)and Associated Land Use Plan Amendments AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record of Decision (ROD). SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)procedures, the BLM announces the availability of the ROD to implement a Wind Energy Development Program and amend BLM land use plans. The decision is hereby made to implement a comprehensive Wind Energy Development Program to administer the development of wind energy resources on BLM-administered public lands in 11 western states, excluding Alaska. In addition, this decision amends 52 BLM land use plans in 9 states to adopt the new program. The Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection and the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning jointly signed the ROD on December 15, 2005. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Wind Energy Development Program ROD are available upon request from Scott Powers, Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Dr., Billings, Montana 59107 or via the Internet at *http://windeis.anl.gov* . Copies will also be available at each of the following BLM offices: Arizona State Office, 222 N. Central Ave., Phoenix; California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1834, Sacramento; Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield St., Lakewood; Idaho State Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise; Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Dr., Billings; Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno; New Mexico State Office, 1474 Rodeo Rd., Santa Fe; Oregon State Office, 333 SW. 1st Ave., Portland; Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Salt Lake City; Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Rd., Cheyenne; and BLM Washington Office, Public Affairs Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Powers, at 406-896-5319, (or e-mail at *scott_powers@blm.gov* ), Montana State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Dr., Billings, Montana 59107. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Wind Energy Development Program ROD was developed through preparation of the *Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States* . The elements of the Wind Energy Development Program and the associated land use plan amendments were evaluated through this PEIS, which was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and the FLPMA. The U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE)cooperated in the preparation of the PEIS in support of the BLM's proposed action. The Wind Energy Development Program will be implemented in 11 western states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The Program establishes policies and best management practices

(BMPs)for the administration of wind energy development activities and establishes minimum requirements for mitigation measures. The policies and BMPs, included in Attachment A of the ROD, address the mitigation of potential impacts to all natural and cultural resources that could occur during any phase of development. These include impacts such as the use of geologic and water resources; creation or increase of geologic hazards or soil erosion; water quality degradation; localized generation of airborne dust; generation of noise; alteration or degradation of wildlife habitat or sensitive or unique habitat; interference with resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, including protected species; alteration or degradation of plant communities, including the occurrence of invasive vegetation; land use changes; alteration of visual resources; release of hazardous materials or wastes; increased traffic; increased human health and safety hazards; and destruction or loss of paleontological or cultural resources. With the decision to implement the Wind Energy Development Program, the BLM Interim Wind Energy Policy, dated October 16, 2002, will be replaced by a new policy that incorporates the programmatic policies and BMPs evaluated in the PEIS. Elements of the Interim Policy addressing applications, authorizations, competitive interests, and due diligence will not be changed by the new program requirements. In addition, this decision amends 52 BLM land use plans in 9 of the states in the study area: Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The land use plan amendments, identified in Attachment B of the ROD, include the adoption of the Wind Energy Development Program policies and BMPs and, in a few instances, the identification of specific areas where wind energy development will be excluded. Public involvement in preparation of the Wind Energy Development PEIS was extensive, as documented in the PEIS and the ROD. The 30-day public protest period resulted in no protests. In addition, results of the 90-day Governors Consistency Review of the PEIS, required by BLM planning regulations, were favorable in that none of the Governors objected to the proposed plan amendments. On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13212, “Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects,” which established a policy that federal agencies should take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects to increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy. In that same month, the President's National Energy Policy Development Group recommended to the President, as part of the National Energy Policy, that the Departments of the Interior, Energy, Agriculture, and Defense work together to increase renewable energy production. On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58). Section 211 of the Act states, “It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of the Interior should, before the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, seek to have approved non-hydropower renewable energy projects located on the public lands with a generation capacity of at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity.” Implementation of the Wind Energy Development Program and the amendment of multiple land use plans to adopt the program will effectively support the directives of E.O. 13212, the recommendations of the 2001 National Energy Policy, and congressional direction provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 regarding renewable energy development on public lands. Dated: December 19, 2005. Ray Brady, Team Lead, Energy Policy Act Implementation Team. [FR Doc. E6-157 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ID-200-1120-PH] Notice of February Resource Advisory Council Meeting To Be Held in Twin Falls District, ID AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. SUMMARY: This notice announces the intent to hold a Resource Advisory Council

(RAC)meeting in the Twin Falls District of Idaho on Tuesday, February 7, 2006. The meeting will be held at the Red Lion Canyon Springs Hotel, 1357 Blue Lakes Boulevard, in Twin Falls, Idaho. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Twin Falls District Resource Advisory Council consists of the standard fifteen members residing throughout south central Idaho. Meeting agenda items will include updates on sub-committee efforts, Cotterell Mountain Wind Power Plant EIS status, SEMPRA coal plant proposal, Recreation RAC status and pending decisions and more. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sky Buffat, Twin Falls District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301, (208)735-2068. Dated: January 4, 2006. Bill Baker, Twin Falls District Associate Manager. [FR Doc. E6-144 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WY-920-1310-01; WYW141204] Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)received a petition for reinstatement from Antelope Coal Company of competitive oil and gas lease WYW141204 for lands in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at

(307)775-6176. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this **Federal Register** notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and

(e)of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW141204 effective March 1, 2005, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands. Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication. [FR Doc. E6-150 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [OR-936-1430-ET; HAG-06-0012; WAOR-59196] Public Land Order No. 7651; Withdrawal of Public Land, Hot Lake Natural Area; Washington AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public land order. SUMMARY: This order withdraws 80 acres of public land from location and entry under the United States mining laws for a period of 20 years for the Bureau of Land Management to protect the Hot Lake Natural Area. DATES: Effective January 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Schurger, Bureau of Land Management, Wenatchee Field Office, 509-665-2116, or Charles R. Roy, Bureau of Land Management Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6189. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Land Management will manage the lands to protect the unique educational, scientific, and research values of the Hot Lake Natural Area. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: 1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public land is hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (2000)), for the Bureau of Land Management to protect the unique educational, scientific and research values of the Hot Lake Natural Area: Willamette Meridian Hot Lake Natural Area T. 40 N., R. 27 E., Sec. 7, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 ; Sec. 18, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 . The area described contains 80 acres in Okanogan County. 2. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f)(2000), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended. Dated: December 15, 2005. Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. E6-151 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [OR-936-1430-ET; HAG-06-0013; WAOR-57965] Public Land Order No. 7652; Withdrawal of Public Lands, San Juan Archipelago; Washington AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Public Land Order. SUMMARY: This order withdraws 276.41 acres of public lands from location and entry under the United States mining laws for a period of 20 years for the Bureau of Land Management to protect the unique natural, scenic, and recreational values and Federal improvements on 11 tracts of land in the San Juan Archipelago. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: Oregon/Washington State Office, BLM, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208-2965. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Schurger, BLM, Wenatchee Field Office, 509-665-2116, or Charles R. Roy, BLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, 503-808-6189. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Land Management will manage the lands to protect the unique natural, scenic, and recreational values and the investment of Federal funds on 11 tracts of public lands in the San Juan Archipelago. Complete legal descriptions for those tracts described by metes and bounds are available from the Bureau of Land Management office at the address above. Order By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: 1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public lands in the San Juan Archipelago are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (2000)), for the Bureau of Land Management to protect the unique natural, scenic, and recreational values: Willamette Meridian Tract H (Lopez Island: NW Chadwick Hill and Wetland) T. 34 N., R. 1 W., Sec. 17, metes and bounds parcel in the SE 1/4 . Tract I (Lopez Island: Chadwick Hill/Watmough Bay) T. 34 N., R. 1 W., Sec. 21, lot 1 and NW 1/4 NW 1/4 . Tract J (Lopez Island: Watmough Bay) T. 34 N., R. 1 W., Sec. 21, metes and bounds parcel in lot 2 and SW 1/4 NW 1/4 . Tract K (Lopez Island: Watmough Head and Watmough Bay) T. 34 N., R. 1 W., Sec. 21, metes and bounds parcel in lot 2. Tract L (Lopez Island: Cape St. Mary) T. 34 N., R. 1 W., Sec. 15, lot 1. Tract M (Lopez Island: Lopez Pass) T. 35 N., R. 1 W., Sec. 33, lot 1. Tract N (Eliza Island: south end) T. 36 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 5, Eliza Island. (unsurveyed). Tract O (Lummi Island: Carter Point) T. 36 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 6, Lummi Island. (unsurveyed). Tract P (Lummi Rocks) T. 37 N., R. 1 E., Sec. 27, Lummi Rocks in the NW 1/4 and SW 1/4 NE 1/4 . (unsurveyed). Tract Q (Chuckanut Rock) T. 37 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 24, Chuckanut Rock. (unsurveyed). Tract R (west end of Patos Island) T. 38 N., R. 2 W., Sec. 17, most westerly 5 acres of Patos Island as described by metes and bounds. The areas described aggregate 276.41 acres in San Juan and Whatcom Counties. 2. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (2000), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended. Dated: December 15, 2005. Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. [FR Doc. E6-155 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-33-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before December 24, 2005. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by January 26, 2006. John W. Roberts, Acting Chief, National Register/National Historic Landmarks Program. ARIZONA Navajo County Bailey Ruin, Address Restricted, Pinedale, 05001560 ARKANSAS Chicot County Chicot County Courthouse, 108 Main St., Lake Village, 05001592 Clark County Arkansas 7/51 Bridge, (Arkansas Highway History and Architecture MPS) AR 7/51, Arkadelphia, 05001591 Garland County Army and Navy Hospital, 105,200,417,421 and 425 Reserve Ave., Hot Springs, 05001590 COLORADO Alamosa County Howard Store, 8681 Main St., Hooper, 05001597 Douglas County Franktown Cave, Address Restricted, Franktown, 05001561 GEORGIA Clarke County Coca-Cola Bottling Plant—Athens, 297 Prince Ave., Athens, 05001594 Cobb County Butner—Mctyre General Store, 4455 Marietta St., Powder Springs, 05001593 Fulton County Tyler, Mary Elizabeth, House, 2887 Howell Mill Rd., Atlanta, 05001598 Lee County Leesburg High School, 100 Starkville Ave., Leesburg, 05001595 Troup County West Point Commercial Historic District, Roughly bounded by 4th Ave., 2nd Ave., W. 9th St., and W. 7th St., West Point, 05001596 IDAHO Ada County Bell, R.H. and Jessie, House, 137 E. Pine St., Meridian, 05001599 Hill, Clara, House, 1123 N. Main St., Meridian, 05001600 Custer County Idaho Mining and Smelter Company Store, One Ford St., Clayton, 05001601 ILLINOIS Cook County Homestead, The, 1625 Hinman Ave., Evanston, 05001607 Maverick Lloyd, Lola, House, 455 Birch St., Winnetka, 05001606 North Mayfair Bungalow Historic District, (Chicago Bungalows MPS) Roughly bounded by W. Foster Ave., N. Pulaski Rd., N. Kilbourn Ave., and W. Lawrence Ave., Chicago, 05001608 Pilsen Historic District, Roughly bounded by W. 16th St., W. Cermak Rd., S. Halsted St. and S. Western Ave., Chicago, 05001609 Grundy County Morris Downtown Commercial Historic District, Liberty St., roughly bounded by the RR, Illinois St., Fulton and Wauponsee Sts and Franklin, Morris, 05001603 Henry County Kewanee Hotel, 125 N. Chestnut, Kewanee, 05001605 Jackson County Hull, William H., House, 1517 Walnut, Murphysboro, 05001602 Warren County Monmouth Courthouse Commercial Historic District, Roughly bounded by Archer Ave., First St., Second Ave. and A St., Monmouth, 05001604 MAINE Cumberland County Abyssinian Meeting House, 73-75 Newbury St., Portland, 05001612 MINNESOTA Lake County Isabella Ranger Station, Address Restricted, Isabella, 05001611 MISSISSIPPI Warren County Grove Street—Jackson Historic District, (Vicksburg MPS) Along Grove and Jackson Sts. bet. Cherry St. and First N. St., Vicksburg, 05001613 MISSOURI Cape Girardeau County Jackson Uptown Commercial Historic District, Roughly bounded by Court, Main, Missouir and High Sts., Jackson, 05001562 Jackson County Park Manor Historic District, 910 Ward Pkwy, 920 Ward Pkwy. and 4826 Roanoke Pkwy, Kansas City, 05001610 NEW JERSEY Bergen County Presbyterian Church of Norwood, 701 Broadway, Norwood Borough, 05001567 Hudson County First Baptist Church, 901-907 Bloomfield St., Hoboken, 05001570 Hunterdon County Eversole, Charles, House, 509 Cty Rd. 523, Readington Township, 05001563 Mercer County Pearson, Isaac, House, Hobson Ave. at Emiline Ave., Hamilton Township, 05001568 Monmouth County Probasco-Dittner Farmstead, 61 Bucks Mill Rd., Colts Neck, 05001564 Morris County Miller-Rinehard Farmstead, 72 Hacklebarney Rd., Washington Township, 05001569 Ocean County Bay Head Historic District, Roughly bounded by Point Pleasant Beach Borough line, Atlantic Ocean, Manotoloking Borough line and Point Pleasant, Bay Head Borough, 05001566 Union County Reeve, William Edgar, House, 314 Mountain Ave., Westfield Town, 05001565 NEW YORK Columbia County Linlithgo Reformed Church of Livingston, 447 Church Rd., Livingston, 05001614 Delaware County First Presbyterian Church, Clinton St., Delhi, 05001616 Livingston County Kellerman Log Cabin, 6074 S. Livonia Rd., Conesus, 05001615 OHIO Cuyahoga County Brownell School and Annex, 1300-1360 Sumner St., Cleveland, 05001576 Federal Knitting Mills (Boundary Increase), 2820, 2811-21 Vermont Ave., Cleveland, 05001575 Old River Road Historic District, 1220-1330 Old River Rd., Cleveland, 05001574 Tuscarawas County Dennison High School, 220 N. Third St., Dennison, 05001573 RHODE ISLAND Newport County Farnham Farm, 113 Mount Pleasant Ave., Portsmouth, 05001617 SOUTH CAROLINA Kershaw County Belmont Neck Site—38KE06, Address Restricted, Camden, 05001578 Newberry County Howard Junior High School, 431 Shiloh St., Prosperity, 05001577 Richland County Woodlands, 409 Old Woodlands Rd., Columbia, 05001572 Spartanburg County Pacolet Mills Cloth Room and Warehouse, 1560 Sunny Acres Rd., Pacolet, 05001571 UTAH Davis County Smith, Thomas J. and Amanda N., House, 472 N. Main St., Kaysville, 05001632 Salt Lake County Smith, Lauritz H. and Emma, House, (Draper, Utah MPS) 12423 S. Relation St., Draper, 05001633 Walbeck, Glen M. and Roxie, House, (Draper, Utah MPS) 12875 S. Boulter St., Draper, 05001630 Tooele County Anderson-Clark Farmstead, (Grantsville, Utah MPS) 378 W. Clark St., Grantsville, 05001627 Erickson, Hilda, House, (Grantsville, Utah MPS) 247 W. Main St., Grantsville, 05001626 Johnson Hall—Deseret Mercantile Building, (Grantsville, Utah MPS) 4 W. Main St., Gransville, 05001628 Wrathall, James and Penninah, House, (Grantsville, Utah MPS) 5 N. Center St., Grantsville, 05001629 VERMONT Caledonia County District 6 School House, (Educational Resources of Vermont MPS) 73 Cemetery Circle, Lyndon, 05001588 Windsor County Gould's Mill Bridge, VT 66, Paddock Rd. over the Black River, Springfield, 05001589 VIRGINIA Amherst County Brick House, 854 Fletcher's Level Rd., Clifford, 05001620 Augusta County Harper House, 3029 Stuarts Draft Hwy., Stuarts Draft, 05001623 Clarke County Millwood Commercial Historic District, Parts of Millwood Rd. and Tannery Ln., Millwood, 05001624 Danville Independent City Langhorne House, 117 Broad St., Danville (Independent City), 05001586 Fauquier County Mount Hope, 6015 Georgetown Rd., New Baltimore, 05001625 Giles County Walker's Creek Presbyterian Church (Boundary Increase), Walker's Creek Balley Rd., Pearisburg, 05001622 Goochland County Second Union School, (Rosenwald Schools in Virginia MPS) 2787 Hadensville Fife Rd., Goochland, 05001583 VIRGINIA Henry County Bassett, John D., High School, VA 57, Bassett, 05001587 Highland County Mansion House, VA 645, 161 Mansion House Rd., McDowell, 05001619 Loudoun County Francis-Gulick Mill, Address Restricted, Leesburg, 05001582 Norfolk Independent City Lambert's Point Knitting Mill (122-0934), 808 W. 44th St., Norfolk (Independent City), 05001585 Richmond Independent City Gordon-Baughan-Warren House, 6303 Towana Rd., Richmond (Independent City), 05001621 Stafford County Hartwood Manor, 335 Hartwood Rd., Harwood vicinity, 05001618 Suffolk Independent City Cedar Hill Cemetery, S. of E. Constance Rd., Suffolk (Independent City), 05001584 Harrell, Joel E., Son, 110 Virginia Ham Dr., Suffolk (Independent City), 05001580 Wise County Fulton, E.M., House, 103 W. Main St., Wise, 05001581 WISCONSIN Fond Du Lac County Zion Congregational Church, N4042 Amity Rd., Alto, 05001579 A request for removal has been made for the following resources: ARKANSAS Clark County Cobb-Weber House, 307 N. 6th St. Arkadelphia, 02000956 Howard County Neal, Noel Owen, House 184 Blue Bayou Rd. S. Nashville vicinity, 03000959 Pulaski County Jones, Arthur J., House 814 Scott St. Little Rock, 76000456 [FR Doc. E6-132 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-51-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request January 3, 2006. The Department of Labor

(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Title:* Disclosures by Insurers to General Account Policyholders. *OMB Number:* 1210-0114. *Frequency:* Annually. *Type of Response:* Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; Individuals or households; and Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 104. *Number of Annual Responses:* 112,500. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 3.75 hours per policy for preparing the annual disclosure and 2 hours per policy for distribution. *Total Burden Hours:* 478,125. *Total Annualized capital/startup costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $22,000.00. *Description:* Section 1460 of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-188) adding a new section 401(c) to ERISA to establish requirements for “Transition Policies” issued before December 31, 1998, to employee benefit plans, under which plan assets are held in the insurer's general account. The regulation requires financial information to be provided to the plan policyholder when the policy is first issued, annually, and upon request. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-147 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Request for Earnings Information (LS-426). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before March 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

(202)693-0418, fax

(202)693-1451, *E-mail bell.hazel@dol.gov.* Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or E-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

(OWCP)administers the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) (33 U.S.C. 901 et seq.), and its extensions the Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Defense Base Act. These Acts provide compensation benefits to injured workers. The Secretary of Labor is authorized, under the Act, to make rules and regulations to administer the Act and its extensions. Pursuant to the LHWCA, injured employees shall receive compensation in an amount equal to 66 2/3 per centum of their average weekly wage. Form LS-426, Request for Earnings Information is used by district offices to collect wage information from injured workers to assure payment of compensation benefits to injured workers at the proper rate. This information is needed for determination of compensation benefits in accordance with Section 10 of the LHWCA. This information collection is currently approved for use through July 31, 2006. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions The Department of Labor seeks the approval of the extension of this information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to assure payment of compensation benefits to injured workers at the proper rate. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Titles:* Request for Earnings Information. *OMB Number:* 1215-0112. *Agency Numbers:* LS-426. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Total Respondents:* 1,600. *Total Annual Responses:* 1,600. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 400. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 15 minutes. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $672.00. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: January 5, 2006. Sue Blumenthal, Acting Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E6-148 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CF-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bureau of Labor Statistics Proposed Collection, Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS)is soliciting comments concerning the proposed new collection of the “CES Supplemental Form on Temporary Help, Leased, and Other Contracted Work.” A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice on or before March 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20212, telephone number 202-691-7628. (This is not a toll free number.) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, telephone number 202-691-7628. (See ADDRESSES section.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Current Employment Statistics

(CES)Survey is a Federal/State program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It produces monthly estimates of employment, hours, and earnings based on U.S. nonagricultural establishment payrolls. Information for these estimates is derived from 265,000 reports (representing 135,000 UI accounts and 350,000 individual worksites), as of December 2004. Each month, these firms report their employment, payroll, and hours on forms identified as BLS-790. All of these reports are collected under a probability based sample design. The CES Supplemental Form on Temporary Help, Leased, and Other Contracted Work will focus on the use of temporary help, leased employees, and other contracted workers in all non-farm industries. Use of these types of employees are an important leading indicator of trends in the U.S. labor market and a better understanding of hiring patterns will help quantify gains and losses in payroll employment. Data will be collected for the reference period of April 12, 2006, and will include the comparable CES all employees figure, temporary help agency workers, leased workers, independent contractors, and other workers not classified elsewhere. The BLS plans to re-contact 100 of the 16,000 respondents to verify the quality of the responses received. Reporting for the CES survey is voluntary under federal law, but is mandatory under state law in five States. The supplemental survey will not be using the State mandatory reporting authority. The BLS may conduct additional supplemental surveys in the future, depending on the availability of resources and the significance of the topic. The BLS is requesting approval for collection through December 31, 2006. II. Current Action Office of Management and Budget Clearance is being sought for the CES Supplemental Form on Temporary Help, Leased, and Other Contracted Work. III. Desired Focus of Comments The BLS is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. *Type of Review:* New Collection. *Agency:* Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Title:* CES Supplemental Form on Temporary Help, Leased, and Other Contracted Work. *OMB Number:* 1220-NEW. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profit; Small businesses or organizations. Form Number of respondents Minutes per report Frequency of response Annual responses Annual burden hours Supplemental Form on Temporary Help, Leased, and Other Contracted Work 16,000 20 1 16,000 5,333 Response Analysis interviews 100 120 1 100 200 Total 16,100 16,100 5,533 *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record. Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of January 2006. Kimberley Hill, Acting Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics. [FR Doc. E6-149 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-24-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-271] Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, issued to Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS) located in Windham County, Vermont. The proposed amendment would change the VYNPS operating license to increase the maximum authorized power level from 1593 megawatts thermal

(MWt)to 1912 MWt. This change represents an increase of approximately 20 percent above the current maximum authorized power level. The proposed extended power uprate

(EPU)amendment would also change the VYNPS Technical Specifications

(TSs)to provide for implementing uprated power operation. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), § 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not

(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or

(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or

(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff's analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration is presented below: First Standard Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. As discussed in the licensee's application dated September 10, 2003, the VYNPS EPU analyses, which were performed at or above EPU conditions, included a review and evaluation of the structures, systems, and components

(SSCs)that could be affected by the proposed change. The licensee reviewed plant modifications and revised operating parameters, including operator actions, to confirm acceptable performance of plant SSCs under EPU conditions. On this basis, the licensee concluded that there is no increase in the probability of accidents previously evaluated. Further, as also discussed in the licensee's application, while not being submitted as a risk-informed licensing action, the proposed amendment was evaluated by the licensee from a risk perspective. Using the NRC guidelines established in Regulatory Guide

(RG)1.174, and the calculated results from the VYNPS Level 1 and 2 probabilistic safety analyses, the best estimate for the core damage frequency

(CDF)increase due to the proposed EPU is 3.3 E-7 per year (an increase of 4.2 percent over the pre-EPU CDF of 7.77 E-6 per year). The best estimate for the large early release frequency

(LERF)increase due to the proposed EPU is 1.1 E-7 per year (an increase of 4.9 percent over the pre-EPU LERF of 2.23 E-6 per year). The NRC staff concludes, based on review of the licensee's risk evaluation and the acceptance guidelines in RG 1.174, that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The NRC staff's evaluation of the proposed amendment included review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed change. This review included evaluation of plant modifications, revised operating parameters, changes to operator actions and procedures, the EPU test program, and changes to the plant TSs. Based on this review, the staff concludes that there is reasonable assurance that the SSCs important to safety will continue to meet their intended design basis functions under EPU conditions. Therefore, the staff concludes that there is no significant change in the ability of these SSCs to preclude or mitigate the consequences of accidents. The NRC staff's evaluation also reviewed the impact of the proposed EPU on the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents for VYNPS. The staff's review concluded that dose criteria in 10 CFR 50.67, as well as the applicable acceptance criteria in Standard Review Plan Section 15.0.1, would continue to be met at EPU conditions. The NRC staff concludes, based on review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed amendment and review of the radiological consequences, that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. Second Standard Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. As stated above, the NRC staff's evaluation of the proposed amendment included review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed change. This review included evaluation of plant modifications, revised operating parameters, changes to operator actions and procedures, the EPU test program, and changes to the plant TSs. Based on this review, the staff concludes that the proposed amendment would not introduce any significantly new or different plant equipment, would not significantly impact the manner in which the plant is operated, and would not have any significant impact on the design function or operation of the SCCs involved. The staff's review did not identify any credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the VYNPS design and licensing bases. Consequently, the staff concludes that the proposed change would not introduce any failure mode not previously analyzed. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Third Standard Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. As discussed in the licensee's application, continuing improvements in analytical techniques based on several decades of boiling-water reactor safety technology, plant performance feedback, operating experience, and improved fuel and core designs, have resulted in a significant increase in the design and operating margin between the calculated safety analyses results and the current plant licensing limits. The NRC staff's review found that the proposed EPU will reduce some of the existing design and operational margins. However, safety margins are considered to not be significantly reduced if:

(1)Applicable regulatory requirements, codes and standards or their alternatives approved for use by the NRC, are met, and

(2)if safety analysis acceptance criteria in the licensing basis are met, or if proposed revisions to the licensing basis provide sufficient margin to account for analysis and data uncertainty. Margin of safety is related to confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB), and containment) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the fission product barriers as discussed below. The NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU to assure that acceptable fuel damage limits are not exceeded. This included consideration of the VYNPS fuel system design, nuclear system design, thermal and hydraulic design, accident and transient analyses, and fuel design limits. The evaluation included an assessment of the margin in the associated safety analyses supporting the proposed EPU. The staff's evaluation found that the licensee's analysis was acceptable based on use of approved analytical methods and that the licensee had included sufficient margin to account for analysis and data uncertainty. In addition, the licensee will continue to perform cycle-specific analysis to confirm that fuel design limits will not be exceeded during each cycle. The staff's evaluation concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft General Design Criteria

(GDC)6, 7, and 8; and 10 CFR 50.46). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that fuel cladding integrity would be maintained within acceptable limits under the proposed EPU conditions. The NRC staff further evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the RCPB. The evaluation included an assessment of overpressure protection; structural integrity of the RCPB piping, components, and supports; and structural integrity of the reactor vessel. With respect to overpressure protection, the staff found that the licensee had used an NRC-approved evaluation method, had used the most limiting pressurization event, and had determined that the peak calculated pressure would remain below the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) allowable peak pressure. With respect to structural integrity of the RCPB piping, components, and supports, the staff found that the licensee had performed its evaluation using the process and methodology defined in NRC-approved topical reports. The staff's evaluation concluded that RCPB structural integrity would be maintained at EPU conditions. With respect to structural integrity of the reactor vessel, the staff found that the licensee had implemented an acceptable reactor vessel materials surveillance program in a previously approved amendment that was based on neutron fluence values acceptable for VYNPS at EPU conditions. In addition, the staff found that the existing pressure-temperature limit curves contained in the TSs would remain bounding for EPU conditions. The staff also found that the methodology used by the licensee to evaluate the loads on the reactor vessel was consistent with an NRC-approved methodology and that the maximum stresses and fatigue usage factors for EPU conditions would be within ASME Code allowable limits. The staff's evaluation regarding the RCPB concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft GDC 9, 33, 34, and 35; 10 CFR 50.60; and 10 CFR part 50, Appendices G and H). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that RCPB structural integrity would be maintained under the proposed EPU conditions. Finally, the NRC staff evaluated the impact of the proposed EPU on the containment. The staff found that the licensee's analysis used acceptable calculational methods and conservative assumptions and that the containment pressure and temperature under EPU conditions would remain below existing design limits. The staff also evaluated the licensee's proposed change to the licensing basis to credit containment accident pressure to meet the net positive suction head

(NPSH)requirements for the emergency core cooling system pumps. The staff found that the licensee's analysis was performed using conservative assumptions and that the credited pressure remains below the containment accident pressure that would be available under EPU conditions. The staff's evaluation regarding the containment concluded that the applicable VYNPS licensing basis requirements would continue to be met following implementation of the proposed EPU (e.g., draft GDC 10, 41, 49, and 52; and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that containment structural integrity would be maintained under the proposed EPU conditions. In summary, the NRC staff has concluded that the structural integrity of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, RCPB and containment) would be maintained under EPU conditions. As such, the proposed amendment would not degrade confidence in the ability of the barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Conclusion Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making a final determination. The Commission previously published a “Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing” for the proposed VYNPS EPU amendment in the **Federal Register** on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 39976). This Notice provided 60 days for the public to request a hearing. On August 30, 2004, the Vermont Department of Public Service and the New England Coalition filed requests for hearing in connection with the proposed amendment. By Order dated November 22, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(ASLB)granted those hearing requests and by Order dated December 16, 2004, the ASLB issued its decision to conduct a hearing using the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart L, “Informal Hearing Procedures for NRC Adjudications.” No additional opportunity for hearing is provided in connection with this notice. In accordance with the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.91, if a final determination is made that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding submission of adverse comments or a request for hearing. In that event, any required hearing would be completed after issuance of the amendment; however, if a final determination is made that the proposed amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, the amendment would not be issued prior to completion of the hearing. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's application dated September 10, 2003, as supplemented on October 1, and October 28 (2 letters), 2003, January 31 (2 letters), March 4, May 19, July 2, July 27, July 30, August 12, August 25, September 14, September 15, September 23, September 30 (2 letters), October 5, October 7 (2 letters), December 8, and December 9, 2004, and February 24, March 10, March 24, March 31, April 5, April 22, June 2, August 1, August 4, September 10, September 14, September 18, September 28, October 17, October 21, 2005 (2 letters), October 26, October 29, November 2, November 22, and December 2, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-159 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force; Request for Public Comment AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has established an interagency task force to evaluate and make recommendations on the protection and security of radiation sources. The Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force (Task Force) is required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. As part of the Task Force's considerations, it is seeking public input on the major issues before the Task Force. To aid in that process, the NRC is requesting comments on the issues discussed in this notice. DATES: The comment period expires February 10, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Task Force is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RSPS-TF) in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety. Personal information will not be removed from your comments. Mail comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E-mail comments to: *NRCREP@nrc.gov.* Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. (Telephone

(301)415-7163). Fax comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at

(301)415-5144. Publicly available documents related to this activity may be examined and copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), Public File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merri Horn, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone

(301)415-8126, e-mail, *mlh1@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background New section 170H.f. of the Atomic Energy Act, added by section 651(d) by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), requires the establishment of an inter-agency task force on radiation source protection and security. The Task Force was established to evaluate and provide recommendations relating to the security of radiation sources in the United States from potential criminal or terrorist threats, including acts of sabotage, theft, or use of a radiation source in a radiological dispersal device. The Task Force is comprised of representatives of the NRC, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of State (DOS), Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and Health and Human Services/Food and Drug Administration (HHS/FDA). The Committee is chaired by NRC. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Task Force to evaluate and make recommendations for possible regulatory and legislative changes on several specific topics related to the protection and security of sources. For the purposes of the Task Force, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 defines a radiation source as a Category 1 Source or a Category 2 Source as defined in the Code of Conduct 1 and any other material that the Commission, by regulation, defines as a radiation source for the purposes of section 170H. Spent nuclear fuel and special nuclear materials (plutonium and uranium isotopes) are excluded. The Task Force is required to submit its report to Congress and the President. The first report is to be submitted no later than August 8, 2006, with subsequent reports to be submitted not less than once every 4 years. The topics being considered by the Task Force in the first report are discussed in section III. 1 “Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources,” approved by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency and dated September 8, 2003. This document provides the public with the opportunity to comment on the topics to be considered by the Task Force. II. Request for Written and Electronic Comments The Task Force is soliciting comments on the topics presented in section III of this document. Comments may be submitted either in writing or electronically as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. This paper provides some background on the major topics that the Task Force will be considering. Based on the comments received in both written or electronic form, the Task Force will be in a better position to evaluate the issues and make appropriate recommendations for regulatory or legislative action. III. Topics for Discussion The following format is used in the presentation of the topics that follow. Each topic is assigned a number with a short title, and includes a topic description paragraph and for some topics, a listing of factors for consideration. The topics being addressed in this document are those topics which the Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifies that the Task Force must address in its report. Other topics may be considered in future reports. The public and industry are invited to

(1)Address any inconsistencies that may be a cause for concern or are perceived to present problems in implementation of the program;

(2)address any perceived gaps or overlaps in the programs;

(3)provide suggestions for modifications to the current programs mentioned in each topic; and

(4)propose regulatory or legislative changes for each topic as appropriate. The public feedback will be considered during the Task Force's review of each topic. Commenters may also provide topic suggestions for Task Force consideration in future reports. Topic No. 1 *The list of radiation sources requiring security based on potential attractiveness of the source to terrorists and the extent of the threat to public health and safety.* *Discussion:* The Task Force will evaluate which radiation sources are required to be secured based on potential attractiveness of the source to criminals and terrorists and the extent of the threat to public health and safety. The evaluation is to identify any inconsistencies in the radiation source lists used by various agencies and determine whether additional sources should be added to the lists. Some examples of the source lists used by various agencies follow. The NRC has issued Orders that impose additional security and control measures upon a certain subset of NRC and Agreement State licensees. The isotopes and thresholds used as the basis of the Orders was the IAEA Code of Conduct Category 1 and Category 2, except radium (Ra)-226, plus several additional isotopes not listed in the Code of Conduct [actinium (Ac)-227, polonium (Po)-210, plutonium (Pu)-236, Pu-239, Pu-240, thorium (Th)-228, and Th-229]. In addition, the NRC has issued Orders, and the Agreement States have issued legally-binding requirements, to a larger subset of their respective licensees, requiring implementation of additional security and control measures. The isotopes and thresholds used as the basis was the IAEA Code of Conduct Category 1 and Category 2, except Ra-226. The NRC has also issued Orders to licensees related to transportation of radioactive material in quantities of concern. The isotopes and thresholds used as the basis for the transportation Orders was the IAEA Code of Conduct Category 1 threshold, except Ra-226. NRC has also issued a final rule on the import and export of radioactive material (70 FR 37985; July 1, 2005). The list of isotopes and thresholds used as the basis of the final rule was the Category 1 and Category 2 thresholds as defined by the Code of Conduct, except Ra-226. The NRC plans to issue a final rule to add Ra-226 to the import and export radioactive material listing. The NRC has also issued a proposed rule on National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (70 FR 43646; July 28, 2005). The isotopes and thresholds for the tracking system are any source equal to or greater than the Category 2 threshold for the isotopes in the Code of Conduct, plus several additional isotopes (Ac-227, Po-210, Th-228, and Th-229). Commenters are invited to provide input on whether any inconsistencies in the radiation source lists used for different purposes are a cause for concern, what additional sources should be added to the list(s), and why they should be added to the list(s). Factors to be considered include: Radiation source activity levels; radioactive half-life; dispersability; chemical and material form; the availability of the source to physicians and patients for medical use; consistency with the IAEA Code of Conduct; consequence and risk of malevolent use, and any other factors determined to be appropriate. If other factors are suggested for consideration, the commenter should explain the basis for including the factor. Commenters are invited to provide input on which factors are more important and should be emphasized. Topic 2 *The national system for recovery of lost or stolen radiation sources.* *Discussion:* There are several activities that make up the system for the recovery of lost or stolen sources. One of the key aspects is to prevent radiation sources from being lost or stolen in the first place. NRC, Agreement States, and DOE have requirements for the safe and secure use of radioactive material. NRC regulations require licensees to secure licensed materials that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas from unauthorized removal or access. NRC regulations also require licensees to control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed material that is in a controlled or unrestricted area and that is not in storage. Agreement States have similar requirements. Programs intended to foster better control of sources include the NRC's General License Tracking System (GLTS), the planned National Source Tracking System, and the NRC's lost source enforcement policy (December 18, 2000; 65 FR 79139). The enforcement policy involves a civil penalty that is 3 times the cost of disposal for a source. This policy is intended to discourage licensees from improperly disposing of a source by lessening the possible financial attractiveness of abandoning the source rather than disposing of it properly. There is also a program for orphan and unwanted sources. Emergency source recoveries are handled under a NRC/DOE Memorandum of Understanding (65 FR 1184; January 7, 2000). Unwanted sources are handled under DOE's Off-Site Source Recovery Program (OSRP). The Conference on Radiation Control Program Directors has a national orphan radioactive material disposition program that tries to match unwanted sources that do not have disposal options (or are not readily available or affordable) with licensees that could use the source. Another aspect of the national system for recovery of lost or stolen radiation sources is the requirement to report lost or stolen material to the appropriate regulatory agency. For the radioactive sources being considered by the Task Force, the regulations in 10 CFR 20.2201 require NRC licensees to immediately upon discovery, report lost, stolen, or missing material to the NRC Operations Center. Agreement States have similar requirements. NRC and the Agreement States have procedures for handling the reports of lost, stolen or missing material and for coordinating with local, state, and Federal agencies to seek prompt recovery of such material. There is also a Trilateral Initiative between the United States, Mexico, and Canada on the reporting of lost or stolen sources. In addition, the U.S. Government is cooperating with the IAEA and other nations in tracking and combating illicit trafficking of radioactive material. Commenters are invited to provide input on inconsistencies or perceived gaps or overlaps in the source recovery system. If commenters provide recommendations for improvement of the source recovery program, they should explain the basis for the recommended measure. Topic 3 *Storage of radiation sources that are not used in a safe and secure manner.* *Discussion:* NRC, Agreement States, and DOE have requirements for the safe and secure storage of radiation sources, whether in temporary or long-term storage. NRC regulations require licensees to secure from unauthorized removal or access licensed materials that are stored in controlled or unrestricted areas. NRC's radiation protection standards are located in 10 CFR part 20. Requirements on use of radiation sources are located in 10 CFR parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, and 70 for the various types and quantities of material. Agreement States have similar requirements. DOE's radiation protection standards are located in 10 CFR Part 810. Commenters should address inconsistencies in storage requirements, whether changes to existing requirements for storage of sources are warranted, and explain the basis for any recommended changes. Topic 4 *The national source tracking system for radiation sources.* *Discussion:* The requirements for the National Source Tracking System

(NSTS)were addressed by an Interagency Coordinating Committee on source tracking. The Committee developed the high-level requirements for the tracking system. NRC is using these high-level requirements to inform the development of the system and the development of a rule. The NRC published the proposed rule on National Source Tracking for public comment (70 FR 43646; July 28, 2005). The final rule is scheduled to be published no later than August 8, 2006. The final rule could likely require transaction reporting for Category 1 and Category 2 sources, plus Ac-227, Po-210, Th-228, and Th-229. These additional radionuclides were added because they are used in the DOE lab system, although they are rarely, if ever, used in these quantities in the civilian sector. The transactions to be reported include manufacture, transfer, receipt, disassembly, and disposal. The final rule also could require that a licensee's initial inventory of Category 1 and Category 2 sources be reported. In addition, import/export notifications will be recorded in the system, as well as reports of lost, stolen, or missing Category 1 and Category 2 sources. The system is intended to capture the domestic life cycle history of each tracked source and will begin operation in mid 2007. The system will contain information on sources possessed by NRC licensees, Agreement State licensees, and DOE facilities. Factors to be considered include whether additional sources should be added to the tracking system, whether different thresholds should be considered (particularly Category 3 quantities of the IAEA Code of Conduct radionuclides of concern), and whether additional transaction reporting should be required. Commenters are invited to make suggestions for future modifications to the system and explain the basis for any recommended changes. Topic 5 *A national system to provide for the proper disposal of radiation sources.* *Discussion:* NRC, Agreement States, and DOE have requirements concerning decommissioning and proper disposal of radiation sources. Many licensees return radiation sources to the manufacturer at the end of the useful source life. If sources are disposed of, it must be at an authorized facility. Some of the radiation sources would be considered Greater than Class C

(GTCC)waste if they were to be disposed. Disposal options are limited for GTCC waste. (GTCC waste means low-level radioactive waste that exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class C waste in 10 CFR 61.55.) NRC regulations on radiological criteria for license termination are in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E and requirements for disposal of material are located in 10 CFR part 20, Subpart K. Agreement States have similar requirements. NRC and Agreement States also have requirements concerning decommissioning funding. NRC's decommissioning financial assurance requirements are located at 10 CFR 30.35. Part 30.35 establishes thresholds for sealed sources containing byproduct material below which financial assurance is not required. For the most commonly used radionuclides, these thresholds are above the threshold for a Category 1 or Category 2 source. However, the threshold is based on total authorized possession limits and not on individual sources. NRC's lost source enforcement policy (December 18, 2000; 65 FR 79139) provides a civil penalty of 3 times the disposal cost for improperly disposed sources. Commenters are invited to address available disposal options and the adequacy of decommissioning funding requirements. Commenters are also invited to address the need for user fees to provide for the proper disposal of radiation sources. The basis for any recommendations should be included as part of the comments. Topic 6 *Import and export controls on radiation sources to ensure that recipients of radiation sources are able and willing to adequately control radiation sources.* *Discussion:* NRC and DOE have programs controlling the import and export of radiation sources. The DOE program applies to DOE facilities and the NRC program applies to all other entities. Entities must have a NRC export license to export radiation sources to other countries or an NRC import license to import radiation sources from other countries. NRC's regulations governing import and export of radiation sources are located in 10 CFR part 110. The final rule on import/export of Category 1 and Category 2 levels of radioactive material was published on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 37985), and became effective on December 28, 2005. The rule requires a specific license for import or export of Category 1 and Category 2 radiation sources, except Ra-226. An amendment will soon be promulgated to add Ra-226 to the regulations as mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The principal criterion for approving exports is a finding that the export is not inimical to the common defense and security of the United States. This finding is relevant to both the nuclear proliferation significance of exports and the related security concerns about radioactive material falling into the hands of non-country organizations, including terrorist groups. In making its inimicality determination, the Commission will, in consultation with the Executive Branch, consider whether the importing country has the technical and administrative capability, and the resources and regulatory structure to manage radioactive material in a safe and secure manner. Commenters are invited to address any perceived gaps in the requirements for import and export controls and whether additional controls are necessary and why. Topic 7 *Procedures for improving the security and control for use and storage of radiation sources.* *Discussion:* NRC, Agreement States, and DOE have requirements for the safe and secure use of radiation sources. DOE requirements for radiation protection are located in 10 CFR Part 810. NRC regulations for the safe and secure use of radiation sources can be found in 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, and 70. The requirements include a requirement for conducting physical inventories. Agreement States have similar requirements. In addition, both NRC and Agreement States have imposed additional controls on licensees via Orders or other legally binding requirements. Some of the Orders contain sensitive information that is not available to the public. These additional security and control measures address access control; monitoring, detecting, assessing, and responding to intrusions; liaison with local law enforcement agencies; background investigations; protecting against unauthorized disclosure of sensitive unclassified information; license verification; shipments and transfers (domestic); and imports and exports. Both NRC and Agreement States have inspection programs to evaluate whether licensees are meeting the requirements and can take enforcement actions against licensees to ensure compliance. Commenters are invited to provide input on inconsistencies in the requirements, any perceived overlaps in the requirements, and additional measures needed to address perceived gaps in the requirements. If commenters provide input for improvements of the programs, they should explain the basis for the recommended measure. Topic 8 *Procedures for improving the security of transportation of radiation sources.* *Discussion:* NRC, DHS, and DOT have requirements and procedures related to transportation of radiation sources. Regulations governing transportation of radiation sources can be found in 10 CFR part 49

(DOT)and 10 CFR part 71 (NRC). Transportation security issues includes domestic shipments, import/export shipments, in-bond shipments, and transhipments. NRC has also issued Orders to licensees to enhance the security of transportation of radioactive material in quantities of concern (above Category 1 threshold in the IAEA Code of Conduct). These Orders contain sensitive information that is not available to the public. However, they generally address preplanning and coordination, advance notification of shipments, control and monitoring of underway shipments, trustworthiness and reliability, and information security. Transportation security for IAEA Category 2 quantities was included in the additional controls discussed in Topic 7 above. Commenters are invited to provide input on inconsistencies in the transportation requirements, any perceived overlaps in the requirements, and additional measures needed to address perceived gaps in the requirements. If commenters provide input for improvements of the programs, they should explain the basis for the recommended measure. Topic 9 *Background checks for individuals with access to radiation sources.* *Discussion:* NRC, DOE, and DOT have requirements for background checks for individuals that have access to radiation sources during use, storage, or transportation. DOT requires a security threat assessment including fingerprinting and an intelligence and immigration check for the drivers of trucks hauling certain radioactive sources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amends section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act to require fingerprinting, for criminal history check purposes, for individuals or entities that are:

(1)Licensed or certified to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the Commission;

(2)have filed an application for a license or certificate to engage in an activity subject to regulation by the Commission; or

(3)have notified the Commission in writing of an intent to file an application for licensing, certification, permitting, or approval of a product or activity subject to regulation by the Commission. The key employees of these entities would be required to be fingerprinted if they have, among other things:

(1)Unescorted access to radioactive material or other property subject to regulation by the Commission that the NRC determines to be of such significance to the public health and safety or the common defense and security as to warrant fingerprinting and background checks; or

(2)access to Safeguards Information. Commenters are invited to provide input on inconsistencies in the requirements, any perceived overlaps in the requirements, and any additional measures needed to address perceived gaps in the background check requirements. If commenters provide input for improvements of the programs, they should explain the basis for the recommended measure. Topic 10 Alternative technologies. *Discussion:* EPA and NRC have conducted and/or sponsored research in the area of alternative technologies. Some of the projects are ongoing. As required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, NRC has recently entered into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an analysis of alternative technologies. The effort will not be concluded until 2007. Alternative technologies may be available that could perform some or all of the functions performed by devices or processes that employ radiation sources. Use of these alternative technologies could result in the reduction in the number of radiation sources or in the replacement of radiation sources with sources that would pose a lower risk to the public health and safety in the event of an accident or attack involving the radiation source. Commenters are invited to provide information on potential impacts of the use of alternative technologies and information on potential alternative technologies for consideration by the Task Force. Commenters are also invited to suggest regulatory approaches and possible incentives that could encourage the use of alternative technologies. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of January, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret V. Federline, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-156 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of January 16, 2006: An open meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 at 10 a.m. in Room L-002, the Auditorium. The subject matter of the open meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2006 will be: The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to the disclosure requirements for executive and director compensation, related party transactions, director independence and other corporate governance matters, and securities ownership of officers and directors. The Commission will also consider whether to propose amendments to require most of the disclosure in proxy and information statements to be provided in plain English. For further information, please contact Anne Krauskopf or Carolyn Sherman, Division of Corporation Finance at

(202)551-3500 or, with regard to investment companies and business development companies, Kieran Brown, Division of Investment Management at

(202)551-6784. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at

(202)551-5400. Dated: January 6, 2006. J. Lynn Taylor, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-254 Filed 1-6-06; 4:05 pm]

Connectionstraces to 18

Traces to 18 documents

U.S. Code