Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-02-02 · U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD · Notices

Notices. Notice of Meeting of Air University Board of Visitors

16,345 words·~74 min read·/register/2006/02/02/06-1006

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

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Air University Board of Visitors; Notice of Meeting ACTION: Notice of Meeting of Air University Board of Visitors. SUMMARY: The purpose of the meeting is to give the board an opportunity to review Air University educational programs and to present to the Commander, a report of their findings and recommendations concerning these programs. DATES: The Air University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting on 2-5 April 2006.
The first business session of each meeting will begin in the Air University Commander's Conference Room at Headquarters Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama (5 seats available). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dorothy Reed, Chief of Academic Affairs, Air University Headquarters, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6335, at
(334)953-5159. Bao-Anh Trinh, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-1399 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Air Force Institute of Technology
(AFIT)Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors; Notice of Meeting ACTION: Notice of meeting of the AFIT Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors. SUMMARY: The purpose of the meeting is to give the board an opportunity to review Air Force Institute of Technology's educational programs and to present to the Commandant a report of their findings and recommendations concerning these programs. DATES: The AFIT Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting on 12-14 March 2006, with the first business session beginning at 0830 in the Superintendent's Conference Room, Building 642, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (5 seats available). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Beverly Houtz, Academic Affairs Office, Air Force Institute of Technology,
(937)255-6565 ext 4424. Bao-Anh Trinh, GS-14, DAF, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. E6-1400 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-05-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Notice of Availability of the Final Supplement II to the Final EIS
(FSII)for the Proposed New Water Supply Reservoir Located in Williamson and Johnson Counties, for the City of Marion, IL AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Final Supplement II to the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been completed for the City of Marion, Illinois, and is available for review and comment. DATES: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we have filed the FSII with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)for publication of their notice of availability in the **Federal Register** . The EPA notice officially starts the 30-day review period for this document. It is the goal of the Corps of Engineers to have the COE notice published on the same date as the EPA notice. However, if that does not occur, the date of the EPA notice will determine the closing date for comments on the FSII. Comments on the FSII must be submitted to the address below under For Further Information Contact and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday, February 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: The Final Supplement II to the Final EIS can be viewed online at *http://www.lrl.usace.army.mil/orf/default.asp* (follow the link to Notices/Illinois/Marion FSII Vol. I and Marion FSII Vol. II). Copies of the Final Supplement II to the Final Environmental Impact Statement are also available for review at the following library: Marion Carnegie Library, 206 South Market Street, Marion, IL, 62959. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Greg McKay, Project Manager, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, P.O. Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059, ATTN: CELRL-OP-FS, (502)-315-6685, Telephone: 502-315-6685. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action by the City of Marion is a new 1,172-acre water supply reservoir located in Williamson and Johnson Counties, Illinois, near the community of Creal Springs. The Lake of Egypt Water District has an agreement in principle with the City of Marion to purchase water if a new lake on Sugar Creek is built. Two pipelines would be constructed for transport of water for treatment. As part of the Corps review process, this Final Supplement II to the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FSII)has been prepared. The Louisville District prepared a Draft EIS and released it to the public for comment in October 1994. A public hearing was held in December 1994. A Final EIS was prepared and released to the public for comment in July 1995. A Draft Supplement I was prepared and released to the public for comment in February 1996. A Final Supplement I to the Final EIS was prepared and released to the public for comment in May 1996. A Draft Supplement II was prepared and released to the public for comment in November 2000, with a public hearing held in March 2001. This Final Supplement II to the Final EIS examines single source options as well as combinations of separate alternatives to satisfy current and future water needs of Marion and the Lake of Egypt Water District as separate entities. This Final Supplement II incorporates the Draft and Final EIS, the Draft and Final Supplement I, and the Draft Supplement II by reference. Dated: January 26, 2006. David F. Dale, Jr., P.E., PMP, Deputy District Engineer. [FR Doc. E6-1390 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-92-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Postsecondary Education; Overview Information; Training Program for Federal TRIO Programs (Training Program); Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year
(FY)2006 *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA)Number:* 84.103A. *Dates: Applications Available:* February 2, 2006. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* April 21, 2006. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* June 20, 2006. *Eligible Applicants:* Institutions of higher education and other public and private nonprofit institutions and organizations. *Estimated Available Funds:* $4,000,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $300,000-$450,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $425,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the maximum amount listed for each of the four absolute priorities, listed below, for a single budget period of 12 months: • Priority 1: $450,000; • Priority 2: $400,000; • Priority 3: $450,000; and • Priority 4: $400,000. To be consistent with the goal of serving all regions of the country as provided in 34 CFR 642.33, successful applicants will be expected to provide training to at least 325 participants, unless we specifically approve another amount. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 8-12. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* 24 months. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* To improve the operation of projects funded under the Federal TRIO Programs, the Training Program provides grants to train staff and leadership personnel employed in, participating in, or preparing for employment in, projects funded under the TRIO Programs. *Priorities:* In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv) and 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), these priorities are from section 402G(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), and the regulations for this program (34 CFR 642.34). Each successful applicant must provide at least one training session on each requisite topic listed within a specific priority that is tailored to the needs of TRIO staff with less than two years of TRIO project experience. Each application must clearly identify the specific priority number for which a grant is requested, and must address each of the topics listed under that specific priority. An application for a grant under a specific priority should not include information concerning any other priority. For example, an application for a grant under Priority 1 should address only training to improve record keeping, reporting student and project performance, and evaluation of project performance as a means for designing and operating a model TRIO project. *Absolute Priorities:* For FY 2006, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet these priorities. These priorities are: *Priority 1.* Training to improve: record keeping; reporting student and project performance; and, the evaluation of project performance in order to design and operate a model TRIO project. *Number of expected awards:* 2-3. *Maximum award amount:* $450,000. *Priority 2.* Training on: Budget management and the legislative and regulatory requirements for operation of the Federal TRIO Programs. Number of expected awards: 2-3. Maximum award amount: $400,000. *Priority 3.* Training on: Assessment of student needs; proven retention and graduation strategies; and the use of educational technology in order to design and operate a model TRIO project. Number of expected awards: 2-3. Maximum award amount: $450,000. *Priority 4.* Training on: Student financial aid and college and university admissions policies and procedures. Number of expected awards: 2-3. Maximum award amount: $400,000. *Maximum number of applications for a priority:* An applicant may submit only one application for a grant under each priority. If an applicant submits more than one application under a specific priority, we will accept only the first application submitted and we will reject all other applications. *Program Authority:* 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 and 1070a-17. *Applicable Regulations:*
(a)The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98 and 99.
(b)The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 642. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $4,000,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $300,000-$450,000. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $425,000. *Maximum Award:* We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding the maximum amount listed for each of the four absolute priorities, listed below, for a single budget period of 12 months: • Priority 1: $450,000; • Priority 2: $400,000; • Priority 3: $450,000; and • Priority 4: $400,000. To be consistent with the goal of serving all regions of the country as provided in 34 CFR 642.33, successful applicants will be expected to provide training to at least 325 participants, unless we specifically approve another amount. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 8-12. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* 24 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* Institutions of higher education and other public and private nonprofit institutions and organizations. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* This program does not involve cost sharing or matching. 3. *Other:* An applicant may submit only one application for a grant under each priority. Each application must clearly identify the specific priority number for which a grant is requested, and must address each of the topics listed under that specific priority. An application for a grant under a specific priority should not include information concerning any other priority. To be consistent with the goal of serving all regions of the country as provided in 34 CFR 642.33, successful applicants will be expected to provide training to at least 325 participants, unless we specifically approve another amount. Each successful applicant also must provide at least one training session on each listed topic in a specific priority that is tailored to the needs of new project directors and TRIO staff with less than two years of TRIO project experience. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Britt Jung, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., suite 7000, Washington, DC 20006-8510. Telephone:
(202)502-7600 or by e-mail: *TRIO@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) by contacting the program contact person listed in this section. 2. *Content and Form of Application Submission:* Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this program. Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria and priorities that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the section of the narrative that addresses the selection criteria and priorities to the equivalent of no more than 50 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Page numbers and an identifier may be within the 1″ margin. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, *except* titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, captions and all text in charts, tables, and graphs. • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. Applications submitted in any other font (including Times Roman and Arial Narrow) will be rejected. • Use 12-point font. The page limit does not apply to Part I, the application for federal assistance face sheet (SF 424); Part II, the budget information summary form (ED Form 524); and Part IV, the assurances and certifications. The page limit also does not apply to a table of contents. If you include any attachments or appendices, these items will be counted as part of the Program Narrative (Part III) for purposes of the page limit requirement. You must include your complete response to the selection criteria and priorities in the program narrative. We will reject your application if— • You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or • You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* *Applications Available:* February 2, 2006. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* April 21, 2006. Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site ( *Grants.gov* ). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically or by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Section IV. 6. *Other Submission Requirements* in this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 20, 2006. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program. 5. *Funding Restrictions:* We reference the regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. *Electronic Submission of Applications.* Applications for grants under the Training Program—CFDA Number 84.103A—must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site at: *http://www.grants.gov.* Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not e-mail an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement *and* submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.* You may access the electronic grant application for the Training Program at: *http://www.grants.gov.* You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search. Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are time and date stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted, and must be date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not consider your application if it is date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date/time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov at: *http://e-Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures.pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all the steps in the Grants.gov registration process (see * http://www.grants.gov/ GetStarted * ). These steps include
(1)registering your organization,
(2)registering yourself as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR), and
(3)getting authorized as an AOR by your organization. Details on these steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 3-Step Registration Guide (see *http://www. grants.gov/assets/GrantsgovCoBrandBrochure8X11.pdf* ). You also must provide on your application the same D-U-N-S Number used with this registration. Please note that the registration process may take five or more business days to complete, and you must have completed all registration steps to allow you to successfully submit an application via Grants.gov. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically including all information typically included on the Application for Federal Education Assistance (SF 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the three file types specified above or submit a password protected file, we will not review that material. • Your electronic application must comply with any page limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you a second confirmation by e-mail that will include a PR/Award number (an ED-specified identifying number unique to your application). • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. *Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:* If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically, or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions as described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the deadline date, please contact the person listed elsewhere in this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number (if available). We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted. Note: Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the unavailability of or technical problems with the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the deadline date and time, or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. *Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:* You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the Internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; *and* • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Dr. Linda Byrd-Johnson, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., suite 7000, Washington, DC 20006-8510. FAX:
(202)502-7857. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice. b. *Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the applicable following address: *By mail through the U.S. Postal Service:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.103A), 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260; or *By mail through a commercial carrier:* U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center—Stop 4260, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.103A), 7100 Old Landover Road, Landover, MD 20785-1506. Regardless of which address you use, you must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1)A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark,
(2)A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service,
(3)A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier, or
(4)Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1)A private metered postmark, or
(2)A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. c. *Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.* If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.103A), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. *Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:* If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department:
(1)You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 4 of the Application for Federal Education Assistance (SF 424) the CFDA number—and suffix letter, if any—of the competition under which you are submitting your application.
(2)The Application Control Center will mail a grant application receipt acknowledgment to you. If you do not receive the grant application receipt acknowledgment within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at
(202)245-6288. V. Application Review Information 1. *Selection Criteria:* The selection criteria for this program competition are in 34 CFR 642.31 and are listed in the application package. Note: For the FY 2006 competition, the Secretary has identified “need” for training projects through the selection of four absolute priorities. Therefore, the Secretary will consider that an applicant has satisfied the “need” criterion listed in 34 CFR 642.31(f) by applying for a grant under one of these priorities, and applicants do not have to address this criterion. The application package contains instructions on addressing the remaining selection criteria. 2. *Review and Selection Process:* A panel of non-federal readers will review each application in accordance with the selection criteria, pursuant to 34 CFR 642.30(a). The individual scores of the readers will be added and the sum divided by the number of readers to determine the reader score received in the review process. In accordance with 34 CFR 642.32, the Secretary will award prior experience points to applicants that have conducted a TRIO Training Program project within the last three fiscal years, based on their documented experience. Prior experience points, if any, will be added to the application's reader score to determine the total score for each application. Pursuant to section 402A(c)(3) of the HEA, the Secretary will not make awards in the order of the scores received by the application in the review process and adjusted for prior experience. Instead, within each specific absolute priority for which a grant is requested, the Secretary will select an application for funding in the order of the reader score received by the application in the review process. Within each specific priority, if there are insufficient funds to fund all applications at the next reader score, the Secretary will use the reader score received by the application in the review process, adjusted for prior experience, to make awards. In the event a tie still exists, the Secretary will select for funding the applicant that has the greatest capacity to provide training in all regions of the Nation in order to assure accessibility to the greatest number of prospective training participants, consistent with 34 CFR 642.33. VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notice (GAN). We may also notify you informally. If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you. 2. *Administrative and National Policy Requirements:* We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant. 3. *Reporting:* At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information as directed by the Secretary. You must also submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditures information as specified by the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118. 4. *Performance Measures:* The success of the Training Program is measured by its cost-effectiveness, based on the percentage of TRIO personnel receiving training each year and by the percentage of those receiving training who rate the training as highly useful. All grantees will be required to submit an annual performance report documenting their success in training TRIO personnel, including the average cost per trainee and the trainees' evaluations of the effectiveness of the training provided. VII. Agency Contacts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Britt Jung (If unavailable, contact Dr. Linda Byrd-Johnson), U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., suite 7000, Washington, DC 20006-8510. Telephone:
(202)502-7600 or by e-mail: *TRIO@ed.gov.* If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service
(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in this section. VIII. Other Information *Electronic Access to This Document:* You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the **Federal Register,** in text or Adobe Portable Document Format
(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO); toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at
(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register.** Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: January 27, 2006. Sally L. Stroup, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E6-1421 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Docket No. EA-306] Application to Export Electric Energy; MAG Energy Solutions Inc. AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability, DOE. ACTION: Notice of application. SUMMARY: MAG Energy Solutions Inc. (MAG E.S.) has applied for authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act. DATES: Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before March 6, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments, protests or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability (Mail Code OE-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-586-5860). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9624 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA)(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On December 14, 2005, the Department of Energy
(DOE)received an application from MAG E.S. to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada. MAG E.S. is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Montreal, Quebec. MAG E.S. has requested an electricity export authorization with a 5-year term. MAG E.S. does not own or control any transmission or distribution assets, nor does it have a franchised service area. The electric energy which MAG E.S. proposes to export to Canada would be purchased from electric utilities and Federal power marketing agencies within the U.S. MAG E.S. will arrange for the delivery of exports to Canada over the international transmission facilities owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Booneville Power Administration, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, International Transmission Co., Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power, Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Northern States Power Company and Vermont Electric Transmission Co. The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by MAG E.S. has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended. *Procedural Matters:* Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with DOE on or before the date listed above. Comments on the MAG E.S. application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-306. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Martin Gauthier, Director, MAG E.S. Energy Solutions Inc., 486 Ste-Catherine W, #402, Montreal, QC, Canada H3B 1A6. A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the program's Home Page at *http://www.electricity.doe.gov.* Upon reaching the Home page, select “Divisions,” then “Permitting Siting & Analysis,” then “Electricity Imports/Exports,” and then “Pending Proceedings” from the options menus. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 26, 2006. Anthony J. Como, Director, Permitting and Siting, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. [FR Doc. E6-1392 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Notice of Intent To Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, WA AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE)announces its intent to prepare a new environmental impact statement
(EIS)for its Hanford Site (Hanford) near Richland, Washington, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021. The new EIS, to be titled the *Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington* (TC & WM EIS), will implement a Settlement Agreement announced on January 9, 2006, among DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the State of Washington Attorney General's office. The Agreement serves as settlement of NEPA claims in the case *State of Washington* v. *Bodman* (Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM), which addressed the *Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program EIS, Richland, Washington* (HSW EIS, DOE/EIS-0286, January 2004). Ecology will continue its role as a Cooperating Agency in the preparation of the TC & WM EIS. Ecology already was acting in that capacity during the ongoing preparation of the *EIS for Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of the Single-Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington* (TC EIS, DOE/EIS-0356, Notice of Intent [NOI] at 68 FR 1052, January 8, 2003). The TC & WM EIS will revise, update and reanalyze groundwater impacts previously addressed in the HSW EIS. That is, the TC & WM EIS will provide a single, integrated analysis of groundwater at Hanford for all waste types addressed in the HSW EIS and the TC EIS. As a result, the TC & WM EIS will include a reanalysis of onsite disposal alternatives for Hanford's low-level radioactive waste
(LLW)and mixed low-level radioactive waste
(MLLW)and LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites. The TC & WM EIS will revise and update other potential impact areas previously addressed in the HSW EIS as appropriate. Finally, the TC & WM EIS will incorporate existing analyses from the HSW EIS that do not affect and are not directly affected by the waste disposal alternatives after review or revision as appropriate. DOE will continue its ongoing analysis of alternatives for the retrieval, treatment, storage, and disposal of underground tank wastes and closure of underground single-shell tanks (SST). In addition, DOE plans to include the ongoing *Fast Flux Test Facility Decommissioning EIS* (FFTF EIS, DOE/EIS-0364, NOI at 69 FR 50178, August 13, 2004) in the scope of the new TC & WM EIS, in order to provide an integrated presentation of currently foreseeable activities related to waste management and cleanup at Hanford. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, DOE will not ship offsite waste to Hanford for storage, processing, or disposal until a Record of Decision
(ROD)is issued pursuant to the TC & WM EIS, except under certain limited exemptions as provided in the Settlement Agreement. DOE is soliciting comments on the proposed scope of the new TC & WM EIS. Comments previously submitted in response to the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS and the 2004 NOI for the FFTF EIS are being considered and need not be resubmitted. DATES: DOE invites Federal agencies, American Indian tribal nations, state and local governments, and the public to comment on the scope of the planned TC & WM EIS. DOE will consider all comments received by March 6, 2006, as well as comments received after that date to the extent practicable. DOE plans to hold public meetings at the following locations: Hood River, Oregon; February 21, 2006. Portland, Oregon; February 22, 2006. Seattle, Washington; February 23, 2006. Richland, Washington, February 28, 2006. The public meetings will address the scope of the planned TC & WM EIS. DOE will provide additional notification of the meeting times and locations through newspaper advertisements and other appropriate media. ADDRESSES: To submit comments on the scope of the TC & WM EIS or to request copies of the references listed herein, including references listed in Appendix A, contact: Mary Beth Burandt, Document Manager, Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 450, Mail Stop H6-60, Richland, WA 99352. Electronic mail: *TC&WMEIS@saic.com.* Fax: 509-376-3661. Telephone and voice mail: 509-373-9160. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on DOE's NEPA process, contact: Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone 202-586-4600, or leave a message at 1-800-472-2756. This NOI will be available on DOE's NEPA Web site at *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa* and the TC & WM EIS Web site at *http://www.hanford.gov/orp/* (click on Public Involvement). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Hanford Site is located in southeastern Washington State along the Columbia River, and is approximately 586 square miles in size. Hanford's mission included defense-related nuclear research, development, and weapons production activities from the early 1940s to approximately 1989. During that period, Hanford operated a plutonium production complex with nine nuclear reactors and associated processing facilities. These activities created a wide variety of chemical and radioactive wastes. Hanford's mission now is focused on the cleanup of those wastes and ultimate closure of Hanford. To this end, DOE manages several types of radioactive wastes at Hanford:
(1)High-level radioactive waste
(HLW)as defined under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 10101];
(2)transuranic
(TRU)waste, which is waste containing alpha-particle-emitting radionuclides with atomic numbers greater than uranium ( *i.e.* , 92) and half-lives greater than 20 years in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram of waste;
(3)LLW, which is radioactive waste that is neither HLW nor TRU waste; and
(4)MLLW, which is LLW containing hazardous constituents as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 *et seq.* ). At present, DOE is constructing a Waste Treatment Plant
(WTP)in the 200-East Area of the site. The WTP will separate waste stored in Hanford's underground tanks into HLW and low-activity waste
(LAW)fractions. HLW will be treated in the WTP and stored at Hanford until it can be shipped to the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Immobilized LAW waste would be treated in the WTP and disposed of at Hanford as decided in the ROD issued in 1997 (62 FR 8693), pursuant to the *Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Final EIS* (TWRS EIS, DOE/EIS-0189, August 1996). DOE is processing Hanford's contact-handled TRU waste (which does not require special protective shielding) for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP)near Carlsbad, New Mexico, consistent with the 1998 RODs (63 FR 3624 and 63 FR 3629) for treatment and disposal of TRU waste under the *Final Waste Management Programmatic EIS for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste* (WM PEIS, DOE/EIS-0200) and the *Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement* (WIPP SEIS-II, DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, September 1997). DOE is disposing of Hanford's LLW and MLLW onsite, consistent with the ROD for treatment and disposal of these wastes under the WM PEIS (65 FR 10061). This ROD also designates Hanford as a regional disposal site for LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites. In January 2003, DOE issued an NOI (68 FR 1052) to prepare the TC EIS (DOE/EIS-0356). The proposed scope of the TC EIS included closure of the 149 underground SSTs and newly available information on supplemental treatment for the LAW from all 177 tanks, which contain a total of approximately 53 million gallons of waste. In March 2003, Ecology initiated litigation on issues related to importation, treatment, and disposal of radioactive and hazardous waste generated offsite as a result of nuclear defense and research activities. The Court enjoined shipment of offsite TRU waste to Hanford for processing and storage pending shipment to WIPP. In January 2004, DOE issued the HSW EIS and a ROD (69 FR 39449), which addressed ongoing solid waste management operations, and announced DOE's decision to dispose of Hanford and a limited volume of offsite LLW and MLLW in a new Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area of Hanford. DOE also decided to continue sending Hanford's MLLW offsite for treatment and to modify Hanford's T-Plant for processing remote-handled TRU waste and MLLW (which require protective shielding). Ecology amended its March 2003 complaint in 2004, challenging the adequacy of the HSW EIS analysis of offsite waste importation. In May 2005, the Court granted a limited discovery period, continuing the injunction against shipping offsite wastes to Hanford, including LLW and MLLW ( *State of Washington* v. *Bodman* [Civil No. 2:03-cv-05018-AAM]). In July 2005, while preparing responses to discovery requests from Ecology, Battelle Memorial Institute, DOE's contractor who assisted in preparing the HSW EIS, advised DOE of several differences in groundwater analyses between the HSW EIS and its underlying data. DOE promptly notified the Court and the State and, in September 2005, convened a team of DOE experts in quality assurance and groundwater analysis, as well as transportation and human health and safety impacts analysis, to conduct a quality assurance review of the HSW EIS. The team completed its *Report of the Review of the Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement*
(EIS)*Data Quality, Control and Management Issues* , January 2006 (hereafter referred to as the Quality Review). Because both Ecology and DOE have a shared interest in the effective cleanup of Hanford, DOE and Ecology announced a Settlement Agreement ending the NEPA litigation on January 9, 2006. The Agreement is intended to resolve Ecology's concerns about HSW EIS groundwater analyses and to address other concerns about the HSW EIS, including those identified in the *Quality Review.* The Agreement calls for an expansion of the TC EIS to provide a single, integrated set of analyses that will include all waste types analyzed in the HSW EIS (LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste). The expanded EIS will be renamed the TC & WM EIS. Pending finalization of the TC & WM EIS, the HSW EIS will remain in effect to support ongoing waste management activities at Hanford (including transportation of TRU waste to WIPP) in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The Agreement also stipulates that when the TC & WM EIS has been completed, it will supersede the HSW EIS. Until that time, DOE will not rely on HSW EIS groundwater analyses for decision-making, and DOE will not import offsite waste to Hanford, with certain limited exemptions as specified in the Agreement. DOE and Ecology have mutual responsibilities for accomplishing cleanup of Hanford, as well as continuing ongoing waste management activities consistent with applicable Federal and state laws and regulations. *The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order* (also called the Tri-Party Agreement [TPA]) among the state, DOE, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)contains various enforceable milestones that apply to waste management activities. DOE also is required to comply with applicable requirements of RCRA and the state's Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1976 as amended (Chapter 70.105 Revised Code of Washington). To carry out proposals for future actions and obtain necessary permits, each agency must comply with the applicable provisions of NEPA and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA)respectively. The agencies have revised their Memorandum of Understanding for the TC EIS (effective March 25, 2003), which identified Ecology as a Cooperating Agency in the preparation of the TC EIS. The Memorandum of Understanding revision is consistent with the Settlement Agreement and provides for Ecology's continuing participation as a Cooperating Agency in preparation of the TC & WM EIS to assist both agencies in meeting their respective responsibilities under NEPA and SEPA. II. Purpose and Need for Action Recognizing the potential risks to human health and the environment from Hanford tank wastes, DOE needs to retrieve waste from the 149 SSTs and 28 double-shell tanks (DST), treat and dispose of the waste, and close the SST farms in a manner that complies with Federal and Washington State requirements. Some waste from tanks and LLW and MLLW from Hanford and other DOE sites that do not have appropriate facilities must be disposed of to facilitate cleanup of Hanford and these sites. III. Proposed Action DOE proposes to retrieve and treat waste from 177 underground tanks and ancillary equipment and dispose of this waste in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Vitrified HLW waste would be stored onsite until it can be disposed of in the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE proposes to provide additional treatment capacity for the tank LAW that can supplement the planned WTP capacity in fulfillment of DOE's obligations under the TPA in as timely a manner as possible. DOE would dispose of Hanford's immobilized LAW, LLW and MLLW, and LLW and MLLW from other DOE sites, in lined trenches onsite. These trenches would be closed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. DOE also proposes to complete the final decontamination and decommissioning of the FFTF. DOE decided, in January 2001, (ROD at 66 FR 7877) that the permanent closure of FFTF was to be resumed with no new missions, based on the *Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility (DOE/EIS-0310, December 2000).* IV. Proposed Scope of the TC & WM EIS In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, DOE intends to prepare a single, comprehensive EIS addressing tank waste retrieval, treatment, storage, and disposal; tank closure; and management of all waste types analyzed in the HSW EIS as an integrated document for public and agency review and reference. The TC & WM EIS will update, revise, or reanalyze resource areas (such as groundwater and transportation) from the HSW EIS as necessary to make them current and reflect the waste inventories and analytical assumptions being used for environmental impact assessment in the TC & WM EIS. All updated analyses would be included in the revised quantitative groundwater and other cumulative impact analyses in the TC & WM EIS. The proposed scope of the TC & WM EIS includes alternatives for onsite disposal of LLW, MLLW, and LAW; transportation of offsite LLW and MLLW to Hanford for disposal; and current or revised information for ongoing operations, such as those involving Hanford's Central Waste Complex, that were included in the HSW EIS. DOE proposes to retain all of the scope identified in the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS as modified by public scoping comments. Proposed modifications to the alternatives identified in the 2003 NOI are provided in Section VI. That is, the new TC & WM EIS would address management of the approximately 53 million gallons of waste stored in 149 underground SSTs (ranging in capacity from approximately 55,000 to 1 million gallons) and 28 underground DSTs (ranging in capacity from approximately 1 to 1.16 million gallons) grouped in 18 tank farms, and approximately 60 smaller miscellaneous underground storage tanks, along with ancillary equipment. DOE proposes to retain all of the scope identified in its August 2004 NOI to evaluate alternatives for the final disposition of the FFTF and proposes to integrate that scope into the TC & WM EIS. The TC & WM EIS will thus provide an integrated presentation of currently foreseeable activities related to waste management and cleanup at Hanford. V. Potential Decisions To Be Made DOE plans to make decisions on the following topics. • *Retrieval of Tank Waste* —A reasonable waste retrieval range is comprised of three levels: 90 percent, 99 percent, and 99.9 percent. The 99 percent retrieval is the goal established by the TPA (Milestone M-45-00); 90 percent retrieval evaluates a risk analysis of the tank farms as defined in the M-45-00, Appendix H, process; and 99.9 percent retrieval reflects uses of multiple retrieval technologies to support clean closure of the tank farms. • *Treatment of Tank Waste* —WTP waste treatment capability can be augmented by supplemental treatment technologies and constructing new treatment facilities that are part of, or separate from, the WTP. The two primary choices that could fulfill DOE's TPA commitments are to treat all waste in an expanded WTP or provide supplemental treatment to be used in conjunction with, but separate from, the WTP. DOE has conducted preliminary tests on three supplemental treatment technologies—cast stone (a form of grout), steam reforming, and bulk vitrification—to determine if one or more could be used to provide the additional, supplemental waste treatment capability needed to complete waste treatment. • *Disposal of Treated Tank Waste* —Onsite disposal includes treated tank waste such as immobilized LAW and waste generated from closure activities that meets onsite disposal criteria; the decision to be made involves the onsite location of disposal facilities. Decisions to be made related to offsite disposal include the length of time and facilities required for storage of immobilized high-level radioactive waste
(IHLW)prior to disposal at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. • *Storage of Tank Waste* —Depending on the alternative being analyzed, storing tank waste for different lengths of time may be necessary. This may require the construction, operation, and deactivation of waste transfer infrastructures, including waste receiver facilities (below-grade lag storage and minimal waste treatment facilities), waste transfer line upgrades, and new or replacement DSTs. Also depending on the alternative, construction and operation of additional immobilized HLW storage vaults, melter pads, and TRU waste storage facilities needed to store treated tank waste. • *Closure of SSTs* —Decisions to be made include closing the SSTs by clean closure, selective clean closure/landfill closure, and landfill closure with or without any soil contamination removal. Decisions regarding barriers (engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C barrier or Hanford barrier) to prevent water intrusion will be made. A closure configuration for the original 28 DSTs will be evaluated in the TC & WM EIS for engineering reasons related to barrier placement for the SSTs. This evaluation also is provided to aid Ecology in evaluating the impacts which might result in closing DSTs to a debris rule standard. However, DOE is deferring a decision on closure of DSTs and decommissioning of the WTP until a later date when the mission for those facilities is nearing completion. • *Disposal of Hanford's and DOE Offsite LLW and MLLW* —The decision to be made concerns the onsite location of disposal facilities for Hanford's waste and other DOE sites' LLW and MLLW. DOE committed in the HSW EIS ROD that henceforth LLW would be disposed of in lined trenches. Thus, the decision would concern whether to dispose of the waste in the 200-West Area or at the Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area. • *Final Decontamination and Decommissioning of the FFTF* —The decision would identify the final end state for the above-ground, below-ground, and ancillary support structures. VI. Potential Range of Alternatives Six alternatives were originally proposed for TC EIS and are listed below. The initial scope of the TC EIS was provided in the January 2003 NOI and at each public scoping meeting. • No Action Alternative, which was to implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD; • Implement the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD with Modifications; • Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal; • Clean Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal; • Accelerated Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal; and • Landfill Closure/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal. Onsite disposal would include immobilized LAW, LLW, and MLLW resulting from tank retrieval and treatment. Offsite disposal of HLW would occur at Yucca Mountain. No determination has been made as to whether any of the tanks contain TRU waste. If it is determined that any tank waste is TRU waste, offsite disposal at WIPP would be appropriate, provided the required approvals from EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department were obtained. As a result of the 2003 scoping for the TC EIS, a number of changes are being made to those identified in the NOI. The major changes are: • The No Action Alternative was modified to address a traditional “no action” rather than the action from the TWRS EIS ROD; • The alternative addressing implementation of the 1997 TWRS EIS ROD was modified to address both the currently planned vitrification capacity and the currently planned capacity supplemented with additional vitrification capacity as the supplemental treatment; • A partial tank removal option was added, which analyzes leaving some of the SSTs in place and exhuming the SSTs completely in the SX and BX tank farms; • The Landfill Closure of Tank Farms/Onsite and Offsite Waste Disposal Alternative has been modified to more clearly evaluate the No Separations (of HLW and LAW waste) with Onsite Storage and Offsite Disposal Alternative; and • A suboption has been added to both the All Vitrification with Separations and All Vitrification/No Separations (of HLW and LAW waste) Alternatives to address closure of the cribs and trenches proximal to tanks within identified waste management areas in place as opposed to removing them. For Hanford and offsite LLW and MLLW analyzed in the HSW EIS, DOE proposes to simplify the alternatives. Both waste types would be disposed of in lined trenches. DOE plans to update the volumes to be disposed of, approximating those volumes for offsite waste in the 2004 HSW EIS ROD, and to update the waste information. DOE also intends to update the transportation analysis of shipping offsite waste to Hanford for disposal. The onsite disposal alternatives are: • Construction of a new disposal facility in the 200-West Area burial grounds; and • Construction of new LLW and MLLW capacity in the Integrated Disposal Facility in the 200-East Area. For the FFTF, the 2004 NOI identified three alternatives as listed below. • No Action—actions consistent with previous DOE NEPA decisions would be completed; final decommissioning would not occur. • Entombment—above-ground structures would be decontaminated and dismantled, below-ground structures would be grouted and left in place. • Removal—above-ground structures would be decontaminated and dismantled, below-ground structures would be removed and disposed of at Hanford. VII. Potential Environmental Issues for Analysis The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis in the TC & WM EIS. This list is presented to facilitate comment on the scope of the TC & WM EIS, but is not intended to be all-inclusive or to predetermine potential impacts of any alternative. • Effects on the public and onsite workers of radiological and nonradiological material releases during normal operations and reasonably foreseeable accidents; • Long-term risks to human populations resulting from waste disposal and residual tank system wastes; • Effects on air and water quality of normal operations and reasonably foreseeable accidents, including long-term impacts on groundwater; • Cumulative effects, including impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at Hanford, including past discharges to cribs and trenches, groundwater remediation activities, activities subject to TPA requirements and cleanup activities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; • Effects on endangered species, archaeological/cultural/historical sites, floodplains and wetlands, and priority habitat; • Effects of on- and offsite transportation and of reasonably foreseeable transportation accidents; and • Socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities. VIII. Public Scoping DOE invites Federal agencies, American Indian tribal nations, state and local governments, and the general public to comment on the scope of the planned TC & WM EIS. Information on the scoping comment period is provided in the DATES section above. Comments previously submitted in response to the 2003 NOI for the TC EIS and the 2004 NOI for the FFTF EIS are being considered and need not be resubmitted. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2006. John Spitaleri Shaw, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health. Appendix A—Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents 45 FR 46155, 1980, “Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,” **Federal Register** . 53 FR 12449, 1988, “Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic, and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,” **Federal Register** . 60 FR 28680, 1995, “Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program, Part III; Record of Decision,” **Federal Register** . 60 FR 54221, 1995, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,” **Federal Register** . 60 FR 61687, 1995, “Record of Decision; Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” **Federal Register** . 61 FR 3922, 1996, “Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement,” **Federal Register** . 61 FR 10736, 1996, “Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington; Record of Decision,” **Federal Register** . 62 FR 8693, 1997, “Record of Decision for the Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,” **Federal Register** . 63 FR 3624, 1998, “Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase,” **Federal Register** . 63 FR 3629, 1998, “Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste,” **Federal Register** . 65 FR 10061, 2000, “Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Amendment to the Record of Decision for the Nevada Test Site,” **Federal Register** . 69 FR 39449, 2004, “Record of Decision for the Solid Waste Program, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington: Storage and Treatment of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste; Disposal of Low-Level Waste and Mixed Low-Level Waste, and Storage, Processing, and Certification of Transuranic Waste for Shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, **Federal Register** . DOE/EA-0479, 1990, *Collecting Crust Samples from Level Detectors in Tank SY-101 at the Hanford Site,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0495, 1991, *Preparation of Crust Sampling of Tank 241-SY-101,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0511, 1991, *Characterization of Tank 241-SY-101,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0581, 1991, *Upgrading of the Ventilation System at the 241-SY Tank Farm,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0802, 1992, *Tank 241-SY-101 Equipment Installation and Operation to Enhance Tank Safety,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0803, 1992, *Proposed Pump Mixing Operations to Mitigate Episodic Gas Releases in Tank 241-SY-101,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0881, 1993, Tank 241-C-103 *Organic Vapor and Liquid Characterization and Supporting Activities,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0933, 1995, *Tank 241-C-106 Past Practice Sluicing Waste Retrieval,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-0993, 1995, *Shutdown of the Fast Flux Test Facility, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington and Finding of No Significant Impact.* DOE/EA-0981, 1995, *Environmental Assessment—Solid Waste Retrieval Complex, Enhanced Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storage Facility, Infrastructure Upgrades, and Central Waste Support Complex, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-1203, 1997, *Trench 33 Widening in 218-W-5 Low-Level Burial Ground,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-1276, 1999, *Widening Trench 36 of the 218-E-12B Low-Level Burial Ground,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EA-1405, 2002, *Transuranic Waste Retrieval from the 218-W-4B and 218-W-4C Low-Level Burial Grounds, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,* Finding of No Significant Impact, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0113, 1987, *Final Environmental Impact Statement—Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic, and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0212, 1995, *Safe Interim Storage of Hanford Tank Wastes—Final Environmental Impact Statement,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. DOE/EIS-0189, 1996, *Tank Waste Remediation System, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Final Environmental Impact Statement,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. DOE/EIS-0189-SA1, 1997, *Supplement Analysis for the Proposed Upgrades to the Tank Farm Ventilation, Instrumentation, and Electrical Systems under Project W-314 in Support of Tank Farm Restoration and Safe Operations,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0189-SA2, 1998, *Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation System,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0189-SA3, 2001, *Supplement Analysis for the Tank Waste Remediation System,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0200, 1997, *Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste,* U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC. DOE/EIS-0026-S-2, 1997, *Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement II,* U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad, New Mexico. DOE/EIS-0222, 1999, *Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOE/EIS-0310, 2000, *Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Accomplishing Expanded Civilian Nuclear Energy Research and Development and Isotope Production Missions in the United States, Including the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility.* DOE/EIS-0250, 2002, *Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,* U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, North Las Vegas, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0287, 2002, *Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement,* U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. DOE/EIS-0286, 2004, *Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement, Richland, Washington,* U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington. DOH Publication 320-031, 2004, *Final Environmental Impact Statement—Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site, Richland, Washington,* Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, Washington, and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, *Report of the Review of the Hanford Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)Data Quality, Control and Management Issues,* Washington, DC. [FR Doc. E6-1404 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Considerations for Transmission Congestion Study and Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (“OE”), Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of inquiry requesting comment and providing notice of a technical conference. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (the “Department”) seeks comment and information from the public concerning its plans for an electricity transmission congestion study and possible designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (“NIETCs”) in a report based on the study pursuant to section 1221(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Through this notice of inquiry, the Department invites comment on draft criteria for gauging the suitability of geographic areas as NIETCs and announces a public technical conference concerning the criteria for evaluation of candidate areas as NIETCs. DATES: Written comments may be filed electronically in MS Word and PDF formats by e-mailing to: *EPACT1221@hq.doe.gov* no later than 5 p.m. EDT March 6, 2006. Also, comments can be filed by mail at the address listed below. The technical conference will be held in Chicago on March 29, 2006. For further information, please visit the Department's Web site at *http://www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.* ADDRESSES: Written comments via mail should be submitted to: Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20, Attention: EPACT 1221 Comments, U.S. Department of Energy, Forestall Building, Room 6H-050, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Note: U.S. Postal Service mail sent to the Department continues to be delayed by several weeks due to security screening. Electronic submission is therefore encouraged. Copies of written comments received and other relevant documents and information may be reviewed at *http://www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Poonum Agrawal, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, OE-20, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
(202)586-1411, *poonum.agrawal@hq.doe.gov,* or Lot Cooke, Office of the General Counsel, GC-76, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
(202)586-0503, *lot.cooke@hq.doe.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. Overview The Nation's electric system includes over 150,000 miles of interconnected high-voltage transmission lines that link generators to load centers. 1 The electric system has been built by electric utilities over a period of 100 years, primarily to serve local customers and support reliability; the system generally was not constructed with a primary emphasis on moving large amounts of power across multi-state regions. 2 Due to a doubling of electricity demand and generation over the past three decades and the advent of wholesale electricity markets, transfers of large amounts of electricity across the grid have increased significantly in recent years. The increase in regional electricity transfers saves electricity consumers billions of dollars, 3 but significantly increases transmission facility loading. 1 North American Electric Reliability Council, Electricity Supply and Demand Database
(2003)available at *http://www.nerc.com/esd.* 2 Edison Electric Institute, *Survey of Transmission Investment* at 1 (May 2005). 3 Department of Energy, *National Transmission Grid Study,* at 19 (May 2002) available at *http://www.eh.doe.gov/ntgs/reports.html.* Investment in new transmission facilities has not kept pace with the increasing economic and operational importance of transmission service. 4 Today, congestion in the transmission system impedes economically efficient electricity transactions and in some cases threatens the system's safe and reliable operation. 5 The Department has estimated that this congestion costs consumers several billion dollars per year by forcing wholesale electricity purchasers to buy from higher-cost suppliers. 6 That estimate did not include the reliability costs associated with such bottlenecks. 4 *Id.* at 7; *see also* Hirst, U.S. Transmission Capacity Present Status and Future Prospects, 7 (June 2004). 5 *National Transmission Grid Study, supra note* 3, at 10-20. 6 *Id.* at 16-18. The National Energy Policy (May 2001), 7 the Department's National Transmission Grid Study (May 2002), 8 and the Secretary of Energy's Electricity Advisory Board's Transmission Grid Solutions Report (September 2002), 9 recommended that the Department address regulatory obstacles in the planning and construction of electric transmission and distribution lines. In response to these recommendations, the Department held a “Workshop on Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Bottlenecks” on July 14, 2004, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Department also issued a **Federal Register** notice of inquiry on July 22, 2004. 10 The purpose of the workshop and the notice of inquiry was to learn stakeholders' views concerning transmission bottlenecks, identify how designation of such bottlenecks may benefit the users of the grid and electricity consumers, and recognize key bottlenecks. In its plans for implementation of subsection 1221(a), the Department notes that it has considered the comments received via the notice and the workshop. 7 *The National Energy Policy Development Group Report,* available at *http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ADAP.* 8 *National Transmission Grid Study, supra* note 3. 9 Department of Energy Electricity Advisory Board, *Transmission Grid Solutions,* available at *http://www.eab.energy.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.publications.* 10 Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Bottlenecks, 69 FR 43833 (July 22, 2004) also available at *http://www.electricity.doe.gov/bottlenecks.* B. Summary of Relevant Provisions From the Statute On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, (the “Act”). Title XII of the Act, entitled “The Electricity Modernization Act of 2005” includes provisions relating to the siting of interstate electric transmission facilities and promoting advanced power system technologies. Subsection 1221(a) of the Act amends the Federal Power Act (“FPA”) by adding a new section 216 which requires the Secretary of Energy (the “Secretary”) to conduct a nationwide study of electric transmission congestion (“congestion study”), and issue a report based on the study in which the Secretary may designate “any geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers as a national interest electric transmission corridor.” 11 11 The Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, sec. 1221, § 216, 119 Stat. 594, 946-953
(2005)(to be codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. 824p). *Note* that section 216 of the FPA specifically excludes the area covered by the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas. *Id.* at § 216(k). Section 216 of the FPA does not mention Alaska and Hawaii; however, their electricity supply systems are not interconnected with the grids of the continental U.S., and therefore the Department does not plan to include these two states in its initial congestion study. Subsection
(a)of new FPA section 216 requires the Secretary to conduct a study of “electric transmission congestion” within “[one] year after the date of enactment of [the Act] and every three years thereafter.” 12 Subsections 216(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the FPA require the Secretary to conduct each congestion study in consultation with affected states and any appropriate regional entity. 13 FPA subsection 216(a)(2) requires the Secretary “[a]fter considering alternatives and recommendations from interested parties,” to issue a report, based on the study, in which the Secretary may designate “any geographic area experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers” as an NIETC. 14 In exercising the Secretary's authority to designate NIETCs, subsection 216(a)(4) states that the Secretary may consider, among other things, whether— 12 *Id.* § 216(a)(1). 13 *Id.* § 216(a)(1), (3). 14 *Id.* § 216(a)(2).
(A)The economic vitality and development of the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack of adequate or reasonably priced electricity; (B)(i) The economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited sources of energy; and
(ii)A diversification of supply is warranted;
(C)The energy independence of the United States would be served by the designation;
(D)The designation would be in the interest of national energy policy; and
(E)The designation would enhance national defense and homeland security. 15 15 *Id.* § 216(a)(4)(A)-(E). If the Secretary designates an area “experiencing electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion” as an NIETC, subsection 216(b) of the FPA authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) to issue permits for the “construction and modification of electric transmission” in the NIETC, provided that FERC finds that certain conditions have been met. 16 16 *Id.* § 216(b). C. Key Terms: Geographic Areas, Needs, and Corridors In its initial electric transmission congestion study pursuant to FPA section 216, the Department expects to present an inventory of geographic areas of the Eastern and Western Interconnects that have important existing or projected needs related to the electricity transmission infrastructure. Such needs may include relieving existing or emerging congestion, addressing existing or emerging reliability problems, enabling larger transfers of economically beneficial electricity to load centers, or enabling delivery of electricity from new generation capacity to distant load centers. The Department recognizes that in some cases it may be possible to address such needs through functional alternatives such as distributed generation, conventional generation sited close to load, and/or enhanced demand response capacity. The Department expects to identify corridors for potential projects as generalized electricity paths between two (or more) locations, as opposed to specific routes for transmission facilities. The Department believes that defining corridors too narrowly would unduly restrict state authorities, FERC, and other relevant parties in determining whether and how to authorize the construction and operation of transmission facilities to relieve the identified congestion. In their comments on the criteria set forth below, the Department invites commenters to address how broadly or narrowly the Department should consider and define corridors in its study and its NIETC designations. III. Questions for Public Comment A. Congestion Study In conducting the initial electric transmission congestion study required by FPA subsection 216(a)(1), the Department intends to identify geographic areas where transmission congestion is significant, and where additions to transmission capacity (or suitable alternatives) could lessen potential adverse effects borne by consumers. The Department will compile an inventory of areas where planners believe significant transmission needs exist. This inventory, the work on which is already well underway, will be based on a review of existing transmission expansion plans and related studies by the regional coordination councils, other regional and subregional transmission planning groups, regional transmission operators, independent system operators and utilities. The inventory will also be informed by congestion modeling that the Department will conduct of the Eastern and Western Interconnects. By August 8, 2006, the Department intends to publish its congestion study and to invite interested parties to provide comments and recommendations concerning these need assessments for each geographic area. Interested parties also will be invited to comment on or identify potential transmission corridors they think could be relevant to addressing such needs, and corridors suitable for designation as NIETCs. The Department will consider well-supported recommendations from affected States and interested parties throughout the study process regarding areas believed to merit urgent attention from the Department. In that regard, if interested parties believe that there are geographic areas or transmission corridors for which there is a particularly acute need for early designation as NIETC, the Department invites interested parties to identify those areas in their comments on this NOI. If such areas are identified, the Department will consider whether it should complete its congestion study for that area in advance of the larger national study discussed elsewhere in this NOI, and proceed to receive comment and designate that area as an NIETC on an expedited basis. If interested parties wish to identify areas for early designation, they should supply with their comments all available data and information supporting a determination that severe needs exist. Parties should identify the area that they believe merits designation as an NIETC, and explain why early designation is necessary and appropriate. The Department will only consider for early designation as NIETCs those corridors for which a particularly compelling case is made that early designation is both necessary and appropriate, and for which data and information are submitted strongly supporting such a designation. After publishing the national congestion study by August 8, 2006 and considering comments received on it, the Department may revise or update its study, or the Department may proceed directly to designation of some NIETCs, based on the study and the comments, alternatives and recommendations offered by the public. To assist the Department in conducting and preparing its electric transmission congestion study so that the study will be the most useful in helping identify areas of need and areas potentially suitable for designation as an NIETC, the Department requests comments on the following questions:
(1)Should the Department distinguish between persistent congestion and dynamic congestion, and if so, how?
(2)Should the Department distinguish between physical congestion and contractual congestion, and if so, how?
(3)Appendix A lists those transmission plans and studies the Department currently has under review. In addition to those listed in Appendix A, what existing, specific transmission studies and other plans should the Department review? How far back should the Department look when reviewing transmission planning and path flow literature?
(4)What categories of information would be most useful to include in the congestion study to develop geographic areas of interest? B. Criteria Development While it is conducting the congestion study, the Department intends to develop criteria based on the considerations listed in subsections 216(b)(4)(A)-(E) of the FPA, 17 and any other criteria the Department considers relevant, to evaluate geographic areas identified in the congestion study as candidates for NIETCs. The Department intends to apply these evaluation criteria to the geographic areas identified in the congestion study in order to identify areas where NIETC designations would be appropriate. 17 The five considerations are:
(A)The economic vitality and development of the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be constrained by lack of adequate or reasonably priced electricity; (B)(i) The economic growth in the corridor, or the end markets served by the corridor, may be jeopardized by reliance on limited sources of energy; and
(ii)a diversification of supply is warranted;
(C)The energy independence of the United States would be served by the designation;
(D)The designation would be in the interest of national energy policy; and
(E)The designation would enhance national defense and homeland security. The Department invites comment on what criteria it should use in evaluating the suitability of geographic areas for NIETC status. Preliminary criteria that might be used in evaluating these considerations for NIETC evaluation are listed below, along with associated metrics that could be useful in applying them. Commenters are also invited to apply any of the draft criteria to one or more specific geographic areas and demonstrate how the criterion helps to identify such areas as having national significance for NIETC designation. *Draft Criterion 1: Action is needed to maintain high reliability.* Maintaining high electric reliability is essential to any area's economic health and future development. Accordingly, an area would be of interest for possible NIETC designation if there is a clear need to remedy existing or emerging reliability problems. *Metrics:* A definition of the affected area in terms of load, population, and demand growth; a description of the expected degree of improvement in reliability associated with a proposed project; if appropriate, identification existing or projected violations of NERC Planning Criteria TPL-001, -002, -003, or -004. 18 18 North American Electric Reliability Council, planning criteria at *http://www.nerc.com/~filez/standards/Reliability_Standards.html#Transmission_Planning.* *Draft Criterion 2: Action is needed to achieve economic benefits for consumers.* An area may need substantial transmission improvements to enable large economic electricity transfers that would result in significant economic savings to retail electricity consumers. *Metrics:* Estimates, based on transparent calculations and data, of the aggregate economic savings per year to consumers over the relevant geographic areas and markets. A demonstration of expected reduction in end-market concentration and how economic benefits for consumers would be affected. *Draft Criterion 3: Actions are needed to ease electricity supply limitations in end markets served by a corridor, and diversify sources. Metrics:* Areas that are dependent on “reliability-must-run” plants would benefit from targeted improvements, in terms of enhanced reliability, reduced costs, or both. Similarly, areas that are highly dependent on specific generation fuels could economically benefit from supply diversification. Estimate the likely magnitude of such benefits, showing calculations. *Draft Criterion 4: Targeted actions in the area would enhance the energy independence of the United States. Metrics:* Provide calculations showing how specific actions aided by designation as an NIETC would increase fuel diversity, improve domestic fuel independence, or reduce dependence on energy imports. Quantify these impacts, including possible impacts on U.S. energy markets. *Draft Criterion 5: Targeted actions in the area would further national energy policy.* *Draft Criterion 6: Targeted actions in the area are needed to enhance the reliability of electricity supplies to critical loads and facilities and reduce vulnerability of such critical loads or the electricity infrastructure to natural disasters or malicious acts. Metrics:* For this criterion, relevant metrics would be case-specific. *Draft Criterion 7: The area's projected need (or needs) is not unduly contingent on uncertainties associated with analytic assumptions, e.g., assumptions about future prices for generation fuels, demand growth in load centers, the location of new generation facilities, or the cost of new generation technologies.* Other things being equal, arguably the Department should be more inclined to designate NIETCs where there are existing needs instead of projected needs, particularly if those future needs rest upon relatively uncertain assumptions and contingencies. On the other hand, timely construction of transmission facilities often requires lead-times of five years or more, and all projections are based on assumptions and involve some degree of uncertainty. The challenge here is to determine what level of confidence can be reasonably imputed to specific projections. *Metrics:* What metrics would be suitable for gauging such uncertainties? *Draft Criterion 8: The alternative means of mitigating the need in question have been addressed sufficiently.* Recognizing the value of transmission alternatives, the Department wishes to avoid designating NIETCs in ways that might unduly affect stakeholders' decisions about how to meet specific needs, confer advantage on transmission options as opposed to non-wires options or generation options, or favor some transmission options over others. At the same time, the Department is mindful that even taking these other factors into account transmission expansion is clearly needed in many areas, and that transmission expansion is itself a protracted process. The Department seeks comments on how it should balance these concerns. The Department also seeks comment on two additional questions:
(1)Are there other criteria or considerations that the Department should consider in making an NIETC designation? If so, please explain, and show how your proposed criterion would be applied, if possible in the context of a specific area or areas that you consider suitable for NIETC designation. For each new criterion proposed, you should offer metrics that measure or quantify the criterion.
(2)Are certain considerations or criteria more important than others? If so, which ones, and why are they especially important? IV. Public Meeting Announcement and Comments The date of the public technical conference is listed in the DATES section at the beginning of this notice of inquiry. The chief purpose of this conference will be to allow participants to discuss key issues raised by commenters' responses concerning the criteria here proposed for the evaluation of geographic areas for designation as NIETCs. For more information about the conference and registration information, please go to *http://www.electricity.doe.gov/1221.* To the extent possible, the Department wishes to make all submissions publicly available on one of its Web sites. However, if any person chooses to submit information that he or she considers to be privileged or confidential and exempt from public disclosure, that person should clearly identify the information that is considered to be privileged or confidential and explain why the submitter thinks the information should be exempt from disclosure, addressing as appropriate the criteria for nondisclosure in the Department's Freedom of Information Act regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11(f). The Department also requests that in such cases submitters provide one copy of their comments from which the information claimed to be exempt from disclosure has been redacted, and that protection of the information or data from disclosure be consistent with the requirements set forth in its Freedom of Information Act regulations at 10 CFR 1004.11. Factors of interest to the Department when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include:
(1)A description of the items;
(2)whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry;
(3)whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources;
(4)whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning confidentiality;
(5)an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure;
(6)when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and
(7)why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. Issued in Washington, DC on Friday, January 27, 2006. Kevin Kolevar, Director, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Appendix A Appendix A lists those transmission plans and studies the Department currently has under review. I. General Documents or Data 1. Electricity Advisory Board, Electric Resources Capitalization Subcommittee, U.S. Department of Energy, “Competitive Wholesale Electricity Generation: A Report of the Benefits, Regulatory Uncertainty, and Remedies to Encourage Full Realization Across All Markets,” September 2002. 2. Electric Transmission Constraint Study, FERC OMOI, December 2003. 3. Electricity Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Energy, “Transmission Grid Solutions Report,” September 2002. 4. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Testimony of Karl Pfirrmann, President, PJM Western Region, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,” Promoting Regional Transmission Planning and Expansion to Facilitate Fuel Diversity Including Expanded Uses of Coal-Fired Resources—Docket No. AD05-3-000. 5. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Remarks of Audrey Zibelman, Executive Vice President, PJM Western Region, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.,” Transmission Independence and Investment—Docket No. AD05-5-000 and Pricing Policy for Efficient Operation and Expansion of the Transmission Grid—Docket No. PL03-1-000. 6. U.S. Department of Energy, “National Transmission Grid Study,” May 2002. 7. U.S. Department of Energy, “Comments to the Designation of National Interest Electric Transmission Bottlenecks (NIETB) Notice of Inquiry,” Appended 10/15/04. II. Documents or Data From the Eastern Interconnection 1. NERC 2005 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. 2. NERC 2005 Summer Assessment. 3. NERC 2005/2006 Winter Assessment. 4. U.S. Department of Energy, “National Transmission Grid Study,” May 2002. 5. FERC Form-715s. 6. Florida-Southern Interface Study for 2005 Summer & 2005-06 Winter Bulk Electric Supply Conditions (Oct 2004). 7. ISO-NE Regional System Plan 2005 (October 2005). 8. Maryland Public Service Commission, “Reply Comments of the Staff of the Maryland Public Service Commission in the Matter of the Inquiry Into Locational Marginal Prices in Central Maryland During the Summer of 2005”—Case No. 9047. 9. MEN 2002 Interregional Transmission System Reliability Assessment. 10. Michigan Public Service Commission, “Final Staff Report of the Capacity Need Forum,” January 3, 2006. 11. MISO 2003 Transmission Expansion Plan. 12. MISO Transmission Expansion Plan 2005 (June 2005). 13. NERC TLR Data. 14. NYISO 2004 Intermediate Area Transmission Review of the New York State. 15. NYISO Comprehensive Transmission Plan. 16. NYISO 2005 Load & Capacity Data. 17. NYISO Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process
(CRPP)Reliability Needs Assessment (December 2005). 18. NYISO Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process Supporting Document and Appendices For The Draft Reliability Needs Assessment (December 2005). 19. NYISO Operating Study Winter 2004-05 (November 2004). 20. NYISO Transmission Performance Report (August 2005). 21. PJM Regional Transmission Expansion Plan 2005 (September 2005). 22. PJM, MISO, NYISO, and ISO-NE Real-time and Day-ahead Constraint Data 23. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., “Comments of PJM in Response to the MD PSC Notice of Inquiry”—Case Number 9047. 24. Project Mountaineer, Work Group Meeting, Sheraton Four Points Hotel Baltimore, MD, August 3, 2005. 25. SERC Reliability Review Subcommittee's 2005 Report to the SERC Engineering Committee (June 2005). 26. SPP RTO Expansion Plan 2005-2010 (September 2005). 27. VACAR 2004-2005 Winter Stability Study Report (Mar 2004). 28. VACAR 2005 Summer Reliability Study Report (Apr 2004). 29. VACAR 2007 Summer Reliability Study Report (Feb 2002). 30. VASTE 2005 Summer Reliability Study Report (May 2005). 31. VASTE 2005-06 Winter Study Report (Nov 2005). 32. VEM 2004 Summer Reliability Study Report (May 2004). 33. VEM 2004-2005 Winter Reliability Study Report (Nov 2004). 34. VST(E) 2011 Summer Study Report (Nov 2004). 35. VSTE 2008 Summer Study Report (Nov 2005). 36. NPCC 2004 Report of the CP-10 Working Group Under the Task Force on Coordinated Planning. III. Documents or Data From the Western Interconnection 1. Available on the WECC Web site— *http://www.wecc.biz,* open “Congestion Study” under the Main Menu of the home page. 1.1. “Framework for Expansion of the Western Interconnection Transmission System, October 2003”. 1.2. “Western Interconnection Transmission Path Flow Study”—February 2003. 1.3. “Northwestern Consortia to Study the Regional Wind Development Benefits of Upgrades to Nevada Transmission Systems”—May 10, 2005. 1.4. “Conceptual Plan for Electricity Transmission in the West”—August 2001. 1.5. “Proposed Criteria for Evaluation of Transmission and Alternative Resources”—October 2005. 2. Available on State of Wyoming Web site at * http://www.psc.state.wy.us/htdocs/ subregional/reports.htm: * “Rocky Mountain Area Transmission Study”—September 2004. 3. Available on California Energy Commission Web site at *http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications /CEC-100-2005-006/CEC-100-2005-006-CTF.PDF:* “Committee Final Strategic Transmission Investment Plan (Committee Final Strategic Plan), California Energy Commission, November 2005.” 4. Available on the Public Service Company of Colorado Web site at *http://www.rmao.com/wtpp.psco_studies.html:* “Colorado Long Range Transmission Planning Study”—April 27, 2004. 5. Available from WECC (Phase 3 Accepted Path Rating Study Report)—Call
(801)582-0353: “Southwest Power link and Palo Verde—Devers 500kV Series Capacitor Upgrade Project”—dated December 2, 2004. 6. Available from CAISO Web site. 6.1. CAISO testimony to the CPUC for the Palo Verde—Devers #2 Project *http://www.caiso.com/14cf/14cf82f921c90.pdf.* 6.2. Information on the Southwest Transmission Expansion Plan
(STEP)*http://www.caiso.com/docs/2002/11/04/2002110417450022131.html.* 6.3. Documents on the Palo Verde—Devers #2 project *http://www.caiso.com/docs/2005/01/19/2005011914572217739.html.* 6.4. Information on the CAISO Transmission Economic Assessment Methodology
(TEAM)*http://www.caiso.com/docs/2003/03/18/2003031815303519270.html.* 7. Available from Northwest Power Pool Web site (Northwest Regional Transmission Association reports). 7.1. “Puget Sound Area Upgrade Study Report”—November 2004 *http://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/PSASG%20Final%20Draft.pdf.* 7.2. “Montana—Pacific Northwest Transmission Upgrade Study” *http://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/MT-NW% 20Study%20Report%202005-Oct.zip.* 7.3. *http://www.nwpp.org/ntac/pdf/ Selected%20Transmission% 20Siting%20constraints.pdf.* 8. Available from the Southwest Area Transmission Sub-Regional Planning Group Web site. 8.1. “Report of the Phase I Study of the Central Arizona Transmission System” *http://www.azpower.org/cats/default.asp#phase1.* 8.2. “Report of the Phase II Study of the Central Arizona Transmission System” *http://www.azpower.org/cats/default.asp#phase2.* 8.3. “Report of the Phase III Study of the Central Arizona Transmission System” *http://www.azpower.org/cats/default.asp#phase3.* [FR Doc. E6-1394 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8027-8] Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board
(ELAB)Meeting Dates and Agenda AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of teleconference meetings. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB), as previously announced, will have teleconference meetings on January 18, 2006 at 1 p.m. E.T.; February 15, 2006 at 1 p.m. E.T.; March 15, 2006 at 1 p.m. E.T.; April 19, 2006 at 1 p.m. E.T.; and May 17, 2006 at 1 p.m. E.T. to discuss the ideas and views presented at the previous ELAB meetings, as well as new business. Items to be discussed by ELAB over these coming meetings include:
(1)Expanding the number of laboratories seeking National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) accreditation;
(2)homeland security issues affecting the laboratory community;
(3)ELAB support to the Agency's Forum on Environmental Measurements (FEM);
(4)implementing the performance approach;
(5)increasing state participation in NELAC; and
(6)follow-up on some of ELAB's past recommendations and issues. In addition to these teleconferences, ELAB will be hosting their next face-to-face meeting on January 30, 2006 at the Westin Chicago River North in Chicago, Illinois from 9:30-12 C.T. and an open forum session on January 31, 2006 also at the Westin Chicago River North in Chicago, Illinois at 5:30 p.m. C.T. Written comments on laboratory accreditation issues and/or environmental monitoring issues are encouraged and should be sent to Ms. Lara P. Autry, DFO, U.S. EPA (E243-05), 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, faxed to
(919)541-4261, or e-mailed to *autry.lara@epa.gov.* Members of the public are invited to listen to the teleconference calls, and time permitting, will be allowed to comment on issues discussed during this and previous ELAB meetings. Those persons interested in attending should call Lara P. Autry at
(919)541-5544 to obtain teleconference information. The number of lines for the teleconferences, however, are limited and will be distributed on a first come, first serve basis. Preference will be given to a group wishing to attend over a request from an individual. For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Lara P. Autry at the number above. To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Lara P. Autry, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. George M. Gray, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development. [FR Doc. E6-1422 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8026-5] Position Statement on Environmental Management Systems
(EMSs)AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice is to inform the public that EPA has updated its Position Statement on Environmental Management Systems (EMSs). This updated statement replaces the 2002 Position Statement on EMS signed by Administrator Whitman and reflects EPA's experiences to date with the promotion of voluntary EMSs as well as our continued commitment to be a leader in this area. The Position Statement explains EPA's policy on EMSs and the Agency's intent to continue to promote the voluntary wide-spread use of EMSs across a range of organizations and settings. EPA encourages organizations to implement EMSs that result in improved environmental performance and compliance, cost-savings, pollution prevention through source reduction, and continual improvement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shana Harbour 202-566-2959. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background During the past decade, public and private organizations have increasingly adopted formal Environmental Management Systems
(EMSs)to address their environmental responsibilities. The most common framework an EMS uses is the plan-do-check-act process, with the goal of continual improvement. EMSs provide organizations of all types with a structured system and approach for managing environmental and regulatory responsibilities to improve overall environmental performance and stewardship, including areas not subject to regulation such as product design, resource conservation, energy efficiency, and other sustainable practices. EMSs can also facilitate the integration of the full scope of environmental considerations into the mission of the organization and improve environmental performance by establishing a continual process of checking to ensure environmental goals are set and met. A well-designed EMS includes procedures for taking corrective action if problems occur and encourages preventive action to avoid problems. Over the last several years, EPA has been involved in a wide range of voluntary activities to facilitate EMS adoption (see *http://www.epa.gov/ems* ). EPA has learned through our work with other organizations that EMSs can improve organizational efficiency and competitiveness, provide an infrastructure for public communication and engagement, and provide a platform to address other important issues such as security. EMSs do not replace the need for regulatory and enforcement programs, but they can complement them. Although EMSs cannot guarantee any specific level of environmental performance, EPA has learned that, when properly implemented, EMSs can help facilities achieve significantly improved environmental results and other benefits. Using EMS as a Tool for Stewardship EPA has developed EMSs at 34 of its own facilities in advance of the December 31, 2005 deadline set forth in Executive Order 13148—Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management. EPA will continue to utilize its EMSs to reduce its environmental footprint and to help lead the Agency's environmental stewardship efforts. EPA will continue to encourage organizations to design and implement EMSs that improve compliance, prevent pollution, and integrate other means of improving environmental performance. EPA is also leading research designed to evaluate the effectiveness of EMSs in various settings and integrating EMSs into more of its own programs. We are evaluating which EMS elements and applications are most effective and how these management systems might be used to strengthen environmental programs and policies. This includes the ongoing efforts to assess the potential financial benefits of EMS adoption and to assess whether EMSs should play any role in the design of regulatory and permitting programs. Statement of Principles EPA's overall policy on EMSs, as with the EMS approach itself, will continue to be guided by the principles of continual improvement and learning, flexibility, and collaboration. • EPA will encourage widespread use of EMSs across a range of organizations and settings, with particular emphasis on adoption of EMSs to achieve improved environmental performance and compliance, pollution prevention through source reduction, and continual improvement. The Agency will support EMSs that are appropriate to the needs and characteristics of specific sectors and facilities and encourage the use of EMSs as a means of integrating other facility management programs. • EPA will promote the voluntary adoption of EMSs. To encourage voluntary adoption of EMSs, EPA will rely on public education and voluntary programs. • EPA will encourage organizations that use EMSs to obtain stakeholder input on matters relevant to the development and implementation of an EMS and to demonstrate accountability for the performance outcomes of their EMSs through measurable objectives and targets. Additionally, the Agency will encourage organizations to share information on the performance of their EMSs with public and government agencies and facilitate this process where practicable. • EPA will encourage the use of recognized environmental management frameworks, such as the ISO 14001 Standard, as a basis for designing and implementing EMSs that aim to achieve outcomes aligned with the nation's environmental policy goals and the principles of this Position Statement. • EPA will collaborate with other key partners—including states, other Federal agencies, tribes, local governments, industry, and non-governmental organizations—as it implements this policy. EPA will support international EMS initiatives that facilitate the increased use of EMSs in the United States. The Agency will ensure that as it implements this policy, its decisions and work are transparent to all interested parties. • EPA will lead by example, by developing, implementing, and maintaining EMSs at appropriate EPA facilities. • EPA will foster continual learning by supporting research and public dialogue on EMSs that help improve the Agency's understanding of circumstances where EMSs can advance the nation's environmental policy goals. EPA will continue to collect improved data on the application of EMSs as it becomes available, including the efficacy of EMSs in improving environmental performance and the costs and benefits of an EMS to an organization and the environment. Dated: December 13, 2005. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-1423 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. Date and Time: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 10 a.m. Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Status: This meeting will be closed to the public. Items To Be Discussed: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participating in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee. Person To Contact For Information: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone:
(202)694-1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-1006 Filed 1-31-06; 11:23 am]
Connectionstraces to 15
9 references not yet in our index
  • 34 CFR 642.33
  • 34 CFR 642.34
  • 34 CFR 642
  • 34 CFR 79
  • 34 CFR 86
  • 34 CFR 642.32
  • 10 CFR 1021
  • Pub. L. 109-58
  • 119 Stat. 594
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice of Meeting of Air University Board of Visitors
C.F.R.§ 75.105
U.S.C.§ 1070a–11
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 642.31
C.F.R.§ 642.30
C.F.R.§ 75.118
U.S.C.§ 824a
Fed. Reg.Notices
C.F.R.§ 385.211
Cite34 CFR 642.33
Cite34 CFR 642.34
Cite34 CFR 642
Cites 24 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.