Notices. Notice

11,618 words·~53 min read·/register/2006/05/15/06-4581

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

BILLING CODE 3710-CE-M DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Availability of Partially Exclusive, Exclusive or Non Exclusive License AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Corps of Engineers, DoD. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, announces the general availability of partially exclusive, exclusive or non exclusive licenses under the following pending patents listed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . Any license granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

DATES: Applications for an exclusive or partially exclusive license may be submitted at any time from the date of this notice. However, no exclusive or partially exclusive license shall be granted until August 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, Office of Counsel, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315-3860. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia L. Howland

(703)428-6672. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. *Title:* Embedded Barrier to Fluid Flow. An Electro-Osmotic Pulse

(EOP)system is used to dewater structure, both natural and manmade. Preferably, the system employs durable, dimensionally stable anodes affixed to structure in a configuration designed to maximize electrical contact with the structure and minimize electrode gas generation. The anodes and cathodes are attached to a DC power supply that provides a voltage potential between them. DC power is cycled until the structure has been sufficiently treated. Select embodiments employ perforated metal pipes as cathodes for the purpose of transport and drainage of fluids. In select embodiments of the present invention, the cathodes are connected to variable resistors designed to reduce opportunity for corrosion of buried metal objects in the vicinity of the EOP system. Select embodiments employ a pre-specified pulse train of DC voltage pulses to migrate water from under a crawl space while moving available cations in the soil. Select embodiments also protect large structures such as concrete dams. *Serial No:* 10/421,922. *Date:* April 24, 2004. 2. *Title:* Detecting, Classifying and Localizing Minor Amounts of an Element Within a Sample of Material. Minute amounts of material, such as a contaminant, are detected, classified and located using a single procedure that eliminates the need for using complex and sometimes redundant instrumentation setups, multiple (and sometimes overlapping) analytic processes, or both. In one embodiment, a series of processing steps enables one to detect, classify, and localize minute amounts of particular elements, e.g., contaminants, in material being tested. Data sets, suitable for characterizing components of samples at least spectrally and spatially, are collected from at least one uncontaminated sample of material (the “baseline” or “control”) and a sample of material under test

(MUT)that may contain contaminants. Comparison of these data sets, using the procedures of the present invention, enables ready classification of minute amounts of material in any sample. The present invention may be used for liquids, solids, and gases, with specific application to gels, pastes, hard powders, soft powders, films, inorganics, and pharmaceuticals. *Serial No:* 10/890,844. *Date:* July 9, 2004. 3. *Title:* Modular Bullet Trap Cover. A modular bullet trap cover element generally includes a shell filled with a projectile trapping medium, preferably a mixture of a resilient granular ballistic medium and a hydrated super absorbent polymer

(SAP)gel. The shell may be made of any of a number of fabric or polymeric materials. In embodiments, the shell includes at least two bags, an inner bag and at least one outer bag, each of which has an open end and a sealed end, connected to one another such that the outer bags may be inverted over the inner bag to cover at least a portion thereof. The modular cover element is formed by filling the inner bag with the projectile trapping medium and then inverting the outer bags to produce a multi-layer shell. In embodiments, the outer bags and inner bag are rotatably connected, permitting the outer bags to be rotated with respect to the inner bag such that bullet holes in the inner and outer bags no longer line up with each other. Several modular cover elements may be fixedly or releasably interconnected, preferably in a mattress-like arrangement, to form a bullet trap cover. *Serial No:* 10/890,846. *Date:* July 9, 2004. 4. *Title:* A Method and System for Treating Contaminants and Odors in Airborne Emissions. A second-generation rotating biofilter employing microorganisms in a microbiological film (biofilm) “mineralizes” contaminants, such as VOCs and odoriferous contaminants. Contaminated fluid, such as air from manufacturing processes, is directed radially outward from a perforated pipe through porous foam attached to the pipe. The pipe serves as the axis upon which layers of foam suitable for supporting formation of biofilms are placed. In one embodiment, an octagonal-shaped drum incorporates eight baskets. In each basket, foam is layered outwardly from the pipe in trapezoidal-shaped layers each of approximately 3.8 cm thickness, each layer separated by air gaps of approximately 1.3 cm to prevent clogging. Seven layers in each of eight baskets comprise the octagonal drum. When the drum is sprayed on one side, water soaks the media and it is heavier on that side, thus facilitating rotation of the drum. Further, the biofilms are supplied with moisture and supplemental nutrients as needed. *Serial No:* 10/911,763. *Date:* August 4, 2004. 5. *Title:* Self-Dispensing Bullet Trap Buffer Block. An additive for buffering a projectile trapping medium and spent projectile strapped therein is a buffering compound formed as a low density foamed concrete block that will self-dispense via fragmentation or pulverization when subjected to incoming fire. The block combines at least one dry component selected from the group consisting of low solubility phosphate compounds, low solubility aluminum compounds, iron compounds; sulfate compounds, and calcium carbonate with a cementing material, water, and an aqueous based foam in substantially stoichiometric amounts. The aqueous based foam is added in a quantity sufficient to adjust the density of the resulting block to be non-buoyant without sinking in the projectile trapping medium. The additive may be employed in a projectile trapping medium to chemically stabilize the medium and environmentally stabilize projectiles trapped therein. *Serial No:* 10/911,771. *Date:* August 4, 2004. 6. *Title:* Portable System For Measuring Dynamic Pressure in Situ and Method of Employment Therefor. A dynamic pressure testing or calibration system packaged as a portable unit for characterizing pressure sensors, such as transducers. Embodiments are packaged for carry on the body, are battery-operated, compatible with existing transducer mounts, and quickly learned and easily used by a single operator. The system supplies a pre-specified impulse (pressure pulse) of fluid, preferably a benign gas, such as air, or an inert gas such as helium or nitrogen. In select embodiments, the gas pulse has a fast rise time and its amplitude may be varied over a pre-specified dynamic range. For example, the rise time may emulate that of an impulse created during an explosion by a resultant pressure wave, i.e., less than 100 microseconds. Embodiments also incorporate a data acquisition capability that accurately captures and records both the supplied impulse and the response of the sensor under test. *Serial No:* 10/991,219. *Date:* November 18, 2004. 7. *Title:* An Implant and Forget Mechanism to Interact with Biota. An “implant and forget” device for interacting with biota after a pre-established time period. Preferably, the biota are fauna and more particularly fish. In select embodiments, the device comprises packaging enclosing means for timing interaction via opening the packaging. In select embodiments of the present invention, the device is a sealed capsule inserted in fish. Embodiments of the present invention are implanted in triploid grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) to facilitate control of aquatic weeds in bodies of water. When the carp have been in the water for a pre-established approximate period of time, toxins in the device are dispensed via long term bioerosion of the sealed opening in the packaging. Otherwise, the carp may destroy all vegetation and harm the aquatic environment for other aquatic life. Several alternative bioerodible seal configurations are provided as embodiments. *Serial No:* 11/179,541. *Date:* July 13, 2005. 8. *Title:* Functionality Index

(F)For Use With an Engineering Management System (EMS). A top-down tiered process establishes an objective measure of the functional capacity of an asset to address a specified use. The process comprises: Developing Issue Categories and lists of functional impact Sub-issue Types and specific issues under each type that may impact functionality of the asset for a specified use; providing the list to evaluators; employing evaluators to evaluate functionality, evaluators assigning a numerical Severity measure to each Sub-issue Type present during the evaluation; recording occurrences of issues under each Sub-issue Type discovered, summing occurrences to determine a Density of each Sub-issue Type; recording the evaluation in one or more engineering management systems (EMS); and using the recorded evaluation, calculating a value to be inserted on a numerical scale as a functionality index, F1. In select embodiments of the present invention, a numerical scale is used with values from 0-100. *Serial No:* 11/194,655. *Date:* August 2, 2005. 9. *Title:* A Process For Treating Waste From The Production of Energetics. A waste stream is treated in a pre-filter having media, preferably sand, connected below a zero-valent metal column reactor incorporating a metal with reducing potential, preferably elemental iron (FeO); the combination preferably configured as a single unit. The waste stream is pumped through the pre-filter to trap solids and deoxygenate it, then enters the reactor and is subjected to a reducing process. Most of the FeO is transformed to the ferrous ion (Fe +2), mixed with the reduced product, and fed to a continuous stirred tank reactor

(CSTR)in which Fenton oxidation occurs. The output is then sent to a sedimentation tank and pH-neutralized using a strong base such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The aqueous portion is drawn off and the sludge pumped from the sedimentation tank. The system is monitored and controlled to optimize required additives, while monitoring of pressure drop across the pre-filter and column reactor establishes replacement requirements. *Serial No:* 11/229,441. *Date:* September 8, 2005. 10. *Title:* Condition Lifecycle Mathematical Model and Process. Initial assumptions related to the service life of a particular item, such as a component section of a building, are mathematically modeled to construct an initial lifecycle condition relationship as condition index

(CI)v. time. To update the model, empirical data may be input at any time. As modeled in an engineering management system, for example, inspections are performed on the item to verify actual condition with that predicted. Quantitative inspection data are then used to update the initial curve. As inspections are performed and data recorded, the curve is updated to accurately capture observed condition and provide realistic estimates of predicted condition, and expected service life. In select embodiments of the present invention, empirical data, such as that from inspections, are weighted, *e.g.* , inspection data may be weighted based on type, level of detail, time in service, time since last inspection and the like. *Serial No:* 11/223,251. *Date:* August 2, 2005. 11. *Title:* System and Method for Increasing the Bond Strength Between A Structural Material and its Reinforcement Agency. This invention involves the coating of a reinforcing material, such as a metal, increasing the adhesion between the material and the matrix, such as a cement-based mortar or concrete, in which the material is imbedded. In one embodiment, a glass frit mixed with a refractory material, such as dry Portland cement, is bonded by heat to the surface of the reinforcing material. The reaction of the refractory component when the metal is embedded in fresh mortar or concrete prevents the formation of soft precipitates at the interface. One embodiment involves mixing Portland cement with the glass frit as a coating, coating a steel rod and firing the coating to bond to the metal. The frit-refractory coating produces a strong bond between the metal and the concrete or mortar matrix and may significantly reduce the potential for the corrosion of the steel. *Serial No:* 11/234,184. *Date:* September 8, 2005. Richard L. Frenette, Counsel. [FR Doc. E6-7331 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3710-92-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records—Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program AGENCY: Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of a new system of records. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Privacy Act), the Department of Education (the Department) publishes this notice of a new system of records entitled “Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program”, 18-13-14. The purpose of the impact evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the Department's student mentoring program using a rigorous research design. The system will contain information about students and their mentors participating in mentoring programs funded by the Department. The sample of approximately 1,400 students will be drawn from approximately 30 of these mentoring programs. In order to assure that students can be randomly assigned to either treatment or control conditions for the study without denying available mentoring services, the mentoring programs that have been selected for inclusion in the study are likely to recruit more students for mentoring services than could possibly be served by the program. Within each mentoring program, students for the study will be selected from a pool of students who have been nominated by their schools to receive mentoring services and whose parents have enrolled them in the mentoring program. Through random assignment, approximately half of the students in the study will work with a mentor and approximately half will not. The system will include the students' demographic information, such as date of birth and race/ethnicity, as well as self-reported attitudes about school, delinquent behaviors, personal responsibility, and the quality of their relationships with peers and adults. In addition, the system will include information about students gathered from school records ( *e.g.* , grades, standardized test scores, and disciplinary actions taken by the school). For the students in the study who are paired with mentors, the system will also include the mentors' demographic information, their self-reported experiences with the training and support provided by the mentoring program, and the activities in which mentors and students engaged. DATES: The Department seeks comment on this new system of records described in this notice, in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act. We must receive your comments on the proposed routine uses for the system of records described in this notice on or before June 14, 2006. The Department filed a report describing the new system of records covered by this notice with the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), on May 10, 2006. This system of records will become effective at the later date of:

(1)The expiration of the 40 day period for OMB review on June 19, 2006, or

(2)June 14, 2006, unless the system of records needs to be changed as a result of public comment or OMB review. ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed routine uses of this system of records to Dr. Ricky Takai, Associate Commissioner, Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., room 502D, Washington, DC 20208-0001. Telephone:

(202)208-7083. If you prefer to send comments through the Internet, use the following address: *comments@ed.gov* . You must include the term “Student Mentoring” in the subject line of the electronic message. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all comments about this notice in room 502D, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ricky Takai. Telephone:

(202)208-7083. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service

(FRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under this section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) requires the Department to publish in the **Federal Register** this notice of a new system of records maintained by the Department. The Department's regulations implementing the Privacy Act are contained in part 5b of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Privacy Act applies to information about individuals that contains individually identifiable information that is retrieved by a unique identifier associated with each individual, such as a name or social security number. The information about each individual is called a “record,” and the system, whether manual or computer-based, is called a “system of records.” The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish notices of new or altered systems of records in the **Federal Register** and to submit reports to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform, whenever the agency publishes a new or altered system of records. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department that are 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 CFR is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* . Dated: May 5, 2006. Grover Whitehurst, Director, Institute of Education Sciences. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, publishes a notice of a new system of records to read as follows: 18-13-14 SYSTEM NAME: Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: None. SYSTEM LOCATION:

(1)Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., room 502D, Washington, DC 20208-0001.

(2)Abt Associates, Inc., 55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM: This system contains records on students who obtain mentoring services through mentoring programs funded by the Department of Education and who are participating in the Impact Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program. The purpose of the impact evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the Department's student mentoring program using a rigorous research design. The study sample consists of approximately 1,400 students at 30 of the mentoring programs funded by the Department. Approximately half of these students will be paired with a mentor and the other half of the students will not be paired with a mentor. Data will also be collected from these students' mentors. Participation of students and their mentors in the evaluation is voluntary. CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: The system will include the students' names, demographic information, such as date of birth and race/ethnicity, as well as self-reported attitudes about school, delinquent behaviors, personal responsibility, and the quality of their relationships with peers and adults. The system will also include information gathered from school records ( *e.g.* , grades, standardized test scores, and disciplinary actions taken by the school). The system will include mentors' demographic information, their self-reported experiences with the training and support provided by the mentoring program, and activities in which mentors and students are engaged. AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: The evaluation being conducted is authorized under sections 171(b) and 173 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002

(ESRA)(20 U.S.C. 9561(b) and 9563) and Title IV, Part A, sections 4121(a)(2) and 4130 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(ESEA)(20 U.S.C. 7131(a)(2) and 7140). PURPOSE(S): The information in this system will be used for the following purposes:

(1)to support an impact evaluation of the Department's student mentoring program as requested by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); and

(2)to provide information for improvement of the Department's student mentoring program. ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES: The Department may disclose information contained in a record in this system of records under the routine uses listed in this system of records without the consent of the individual if the disclosure is compatible with the purposes for which the record was collected. These disclosures may be made on a case-by-case basis or, if the Department has complied with the computer matching requirements of the Privacy Act, under a computer matching agreement. Any disclosure of individually identifiable information from a record in this system must also comply with the requirements of section 183 of the ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9573) providing for confidentiality standards that apply to all collections, reporting and publication of data by the Institute of Education Sciences.

(1)*Contract Disclosure.* If the Department contracts with an entity for the purposes of performing any function that requires disclosure of records in this system to employees of the contractor, the Department may disclose the records to those employees. Before entering into such a contract, the Department shall require the contractor to maintain Privacy Act safeguards as required under 5 U.S.C. 552a(m) with respect to the records in the system.

(2)*Research Disclosure.* The Department may disclose records to a researcher if an appropriate official of the Department determines that the individual or organization to which the disclosure would be made is qualified to carry out specific research related to functions or purposes of this system of records. The official may disclose records from this system of records to that researcher solely for the purpose of carrying out that research related to the functions or purposes of this system of records. The researcher must maintain Privacy Act safeguards with respect to the disclosed records.

(3)*Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA)Advice Disclosure.* The Department may disclose records to the U.S. Department of Justice and OMB if the Department concludes that disclosure is desirable or necessary in determining whether particular records are required to be disclosed under the FOIA. DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES: Not applicable to this system notice. POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE: The Department maintains records on CD-ROM, and the contractor maintains data for this system on computers and in hard copy. RETRIEVABILITY: Records in this system are indexed by a number assigned to each student that is cross referenced by the student's name on a separate list. After students are randomly assigned to the treatment (mentoring) group, a list of those students will be sent to each mentoring program participating in the study, asking for the name of the mentor for each student, along with the contact information for each mentor. This information is entered into a Microsoft Access data base for purposes of tracking. In addition, on the survey form sent out to mentors in the spring, mentors will be asked to update their contact information if necessary. SAFEGUARDS: All physical access to the Department's site, and the site of the Department's contractor where this system of records is maintained, is controlled and monitored by security personnel. The computer system employed by the Department offers a high degree of resistance to tampering and circumvention. This computer system permits data access to Department and contract staff only on a “need to know” basis, and controls individual users ability to access and alter records within the system. The contractor, Abt Associates, Inc. (Abt), has established a set of procedures to ensure confidentiality of data. Abt's system ensures that information identifying individuals is in files physically separated from other research data. Abt will maintain security of the complete set of all master data files and documentation. Access to individually identifiable data will be strictly controlled. All data will be kept in locked file cabinets during nonworking hours and work on hardcopy data will take place in a single room except for data entry. Physical security of electronic data will also be maintained. Security features that protect project data include: password-protected accounts that authorize users to use the Abt system but to access only specific network directories and network software; user rights and directory and file attributes that limit those who can use particular directories and files and determine how they can use them; e-mail passwords that authorize the user to access mail services; and additional security features that the network administrator establishes for projects as needed. The contractor employees who maintain (collect, maintain, use, or disseminate) data in this system must comply with the requirements of the confidentiality standards in section 183 of the ESRA (20 U.S.C. 9573). RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with the Department's Records Disposition Schedules in Part 3 (Research Projects and Management Study Records) and Part 14 (Electronic Records). SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS: Ricky Takai, Associate Commissioner, Evaluation Division, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., room 502D, Washington, DC 20208-0001. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: If you wish to determine whether a record exists regarding you in the system of records, contact the systems manager. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE: If you wish to gain access to your record in the system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.5, including proof of identity. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: If you wish to contest the content of a record regarding you in the system of records, contact the system manager. Your request must meet the requirements of regulations in 34 CFR 5b.7, including proof of identity. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: The system will include the students' names, demographic information, such as date of birth and race/ethnicity, as well as self-reported attitudes about school, delinquent behaviors, personal responsibility, and the quality of their relationships with peers and adults. The system will also include information gathered from school records ( *e.g.* , grades, standardized test scores, and disciplinary actions taken by the school). The system will also include mentors' demographic information, their self-reported experiences with the training and support provided by the mentoring program, and activities in which mentors and students are engaged. EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: None. [FR Doc. E6-7345 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8170-1; Docket No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0260] Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; Call for Information. SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)is undertaking to update and revise, where appropriate, the air quality criteria for sulfur oxides (SO x ), last addressed in EPA/600/FP-93/002, “Supplement to the Second Addendum

(1986)to Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982): Assessment of New Findings on Sulfur Dioxide Acute Exposure Health Effects in Asthmatic Individuals,” published in August 1994 by the Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. Interested parties are invited to assist the EPA in developing and refining the scientific information base for updating this assessment of scientific information for sulfur oxides by submitting research studies that have been published, accepted for publication, or presented at a public scientific meeting. Areas where additional new information will be particularly useful to EPA for this project are described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. DATES: All materials submitted under this call for information should be received on or before June 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit materials, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0260, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: *ORD.Docket@epa.gov* . • Fax: 202-566-1753; Office of Environmental Information

(OEI)Docket in the Headquarters EPA Docket Center. • Mail: Office of Environmental Information

(OEI)Docket (Mail Code 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. • Hand Delivery: The Office of Environmental Information

(OEI)Docket is located in the EPA Headquarters Docket Center, Room B102 EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is 202-566-1752. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide information in writing, please submit one unbound original, with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the main text, and submit an unbound original and three copies. *Instructions:* Direct your materials to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0260. It is EPA's policy to include all submitted materials in the public docket without change and to make the materials available online at *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided, unless the included information is claimed as Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through * http:// www.regulations.gov * or e-mail. The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it within the submitted material. If you submit information directly to EPA by e-mail without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the information that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit materials electronically, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your submitted material due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your submission. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.* *Docket:* Documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA HQ Docket Center. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Mary Ross, facsimile: 919-541-1818 or e-mail: *ross.mary@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Does This Action Apply to Me? Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to identify certain pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare” and to issue air quality criteria for them. These air quality criteria are to “accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air * * *.” Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act subsequently requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health and welfare. EPA is also to revise the NAAQS, if appropriate, based on the revised criteria. SO X are one of six principal (or “criteria”) pollutants for which EPA has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Periodically, EPA reviews the scientific basis for these standards and prepares a science assessment document (historically referred to as a “criteria document”). The science assessment provides the scientific basis for additional technical and policy assessments that form the basis for EPA decisions on the adequacy of a current NAAQS and the appropriateness of new or revised standards. One of the first steps in this process is to announce the beginning of this periodic NAAQS review and the start of the development of the science assessment by requesting the public to submit scientific literature that they want to bring to the attention of the Agency. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), a review committee of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), is mandated by the Clean Air Act with performing an independent expert scientific review of the air quality criteria. This involves review of draft(s) of EPA's science assessment document. As this process proceeds, the public will have opportunities to review and comment on draft(s) of the science assessment document for SO X . These opportunities will also be announced in the **Federal Register** . B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare Materials for Submission to EPA? Since completion of the 1994 “Supplement to the Second Addendum

(1986)to Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982): Assessment of New Findings on Sulfur Dioxide Acute Exposure Health Effects in Asthmatic Individuals,” EPA has continued to follow the scientific research on SO X exposure and its effects on public health and the environment and has gathered appropriate studies. The Agency is particularly interested in additional new information concerning:

(1)Atmospheric science aspects ( *e.g.* , sources , emissions, atmospheric transformation and transport, air quality concentrations, patterns and trends);

(2)exposure and dosimetry aspects;

(3)health effects aspects, including information derived from human and animal toxicological studies of SO 2 and transformation products ( *e.g.* sulfates, sulfuric acid); and

(4)ecological effects of SO 2 and transformation products, such as those arising from wet and dry deposition of sulfates and/or sulfuric acid. These and other selected literature relevant to a review of the NAAQS for sulfur oxides will be assessed in the forthcoming revised science assessment for SO X . One or more drafts of the science assessment document for SO X are expected to be made available by EPA for public comment and CASAC review. After this call for information, other opportunities for submission of new peer-reviewed papers (published or in-press) will be possible as part of public comment on the draft documents that will be reviewed by CASAC. Dated: May 3, 2006. Peter W. Preuss, Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [FR Doc. E6-7340 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8170-2] Animal Feeding Operations Consent Agreement and Final Order AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: EPA is considering the disclosure of certain information that may be subject to a claim of confidential business information

(CBI)in connection with a proceeding before EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). The information is the name and address of Animal Feeding Operations

(AFOs)who have submitted consent agreements and final orders to EPA to resolve potential civil violations related to air emissions from their facilities. EPA is requesting comments from the effected AFOs regarding the potential disclosure of their names and address. DATES: Comments must be received by May 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Director, Attn: AFO CAFO Confidential Business Information Comments, Special Litigation and Projects Division (2248A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile to

(202)564-0010 or via e-mail at *AFOComments@epa.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this notice, contact Bruce Fergusson at

(202)564-1261 or at *fergusson.bruce@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 31, 2005, EPA offered certain Animal Feeding Operations

(AFOs)the opportunity to sign a consent agreement and final order resolving potential violations under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (henceforth referred to as the “Air Compliance Agreement” or the “Agreement”). By the close of the sign-up period on August 12, 2005, EPA had received over 2600 signed Agreements from AFOs. Approximately 1200 of the Agreements included broad claims by the submitting AFOs that the facility specific information that was required to be submitted in Attachment A to the Agreements was entitled to confidential treatment for reasons of business confidentiality (CBI). These broad claims potentially included the name of the facility and its address, which are found in Attachment A to the Agreements. EPA is considering the disclosure of the names and addresses of these AFOs in connection with the submittal of these proposed consent agreements and final orders to the EAB for approval. With respect to proceedings commenced at EPA Headquarters, EPA is required to obtain a final order from the EAB ratifying any consent agreement that disposes of the proceeding. In accordance with this requirement, EPA submitted 20 Agreements, which did not contain any CBI claims, to the EAB on November 11, 2005, for approval. On January 27, 2006, the Board approved the first 20 Agreements. On April 11, 2006, EPA submitted 702 additional Agreements, which did not contain any CBI claims, to the EAB for approval. These additional Agreements were approved on April 17, 2006. EPA is preparing to submit most of the approximately 1200 Agreements that contain information claimed as CBI to the EAB for review and approval. In connection with those proceedings, EPA is considering the disclosure of the names and addresses of the AFOs who signed the Agreements (the Respondents) pursuant to 40 CFR 2.301(g) (“Disclosure of information relevant to a proceeding”), notwithstanding that the information may be subject to a CBI claim. EPA's filings with the EAB are public, thus this information would be available to the public upon EPA's filing of the proposed Agreements and final orders. EPA is not considering, at this time, disclosing to the public any other information that has been claimed to be CBI. EPA is considering disclosing names and addresses because, initially, it appears that:

(1)The names and addresses of the Respondents are relevant to the subject of the proceedings;

(2)the public interest would be served by making available the names and addresses of the businesses with which EPA will be entering into consent agreements; and (3), the names and addresses of these businesses are reasonably attainable by other persons through public records such as telephone books and other business listings. EPA is hereby providing an opportunity for any affected AFO to provide comments on the proposal by EPA to make their names and addresses available as part of the proceeding before the EAB to approve their Agreement. Such comments should address the issue of whether its name and address are relevant to the proceeding and whether it is in the public interest to disclose that information. The affected AFO may also address the issue of whether its name and address are entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to the criteria set forth in 40 CFR 2.208, including whether the information is reasonably obtainable by other persons through legitimate means. All comments should be submitted within five

(5)days of the date of this notice. EPA is not seeking, or considering, comments from anybody other than the affected AFOs. In accordance with 40 CFR 2.204(e)(1), any failure by an AFO to furnish timely comments will be construed as a waiver of its claim, and EPA will forward their Agreement to the EAB for review and approval no earlier than five

(5)days after the close of the comment period. Although the names and addresses of the AFOs will be available to the public at that time, other information about the facility claimed as CBI will continue to be handled in accordance with EPA's CBI regulations. For those AFOs who furnish timely comments, EPA will proceed to make a determination under 40 CFR 2.301(g) after the close of the comment period. Dated: May 9, 2006. Robert A. Kaplan, Director, Special Litigation and Project Division, Office of Civil Enforcement, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. [FR Doc. E6-7330 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8169-6] Brownfields State and Tribal Response Grant Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This action adds the Brownfields State and Tribal Response

(BSTR)grant program authorized by section 128(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, (CERCLA), to the list of environmental grant programs eligible for inclusion in Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Bowles, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Office of the Administrator, Mail Code 1301, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number, 202-564-7178; e-mail address: *bowles.jack@epa.gov;* or Jennifer Wilbur, Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Mail Code 5105T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number, 202-566-2756; e-mail address: *wilbur.jennifer@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134) and the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-65), authorize EPA to combine categorical grant funds appropriated in EPA's State and Tribal Assistance Grant

(STAG)account and award the funds as PPGs. Public Law 104-134, states, in relevant part, that: “the Administrator is authorized to make grants annually from funds appropriated under this heading, subject to such terms and conditions as the Administrator shall establish, to any State or federally recognized Indian tribe for multimedia or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related environmental activities at the request of the Governor or other appropriate State official or the tribe.” Public Law 105-65 amended the PPG authority by authorizing “interstate agencies, tribal consortia, and air pollution control agencies” to receive PPGs. Pursuant to the authority granted in Public Law 104-134 and Public Law 105-65, EPA promulgated PPG regulations in January of 2001 as part of the Agency's revision of 40 CFR part 35, the rules governing categorical environmental program grants. The regulation at 40 CFR 35.133(b) states that: “The Administrator may, in guidance or regulation, describe subsequent additions, deletions, or changes to the list of environmental programs eligible for inclusion in Performance Partnership Grants.” The BSTR grant program authorized by CERCLA 128(a) is funded in the same line item that funds categorical grants for “multimedia or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement and related environmental activities” and, therefore, this grant program is eligible for inclusion in PPGs. This notice is made pursuant to 40 CFR 35.133(b), to inform entities eligible to receive PPGs that the BSTR grant program may be included in a PPG subject to any limitations herein defined. In the fiscal year 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, Public Law 108-7, EPA was appropriated funds “for carrying out section 128[(a)] of CERCLA, as amended.” Congress has included funds for CERCLA 128(a) in subsequent EPA appropriations. Heretofore and hereafter, the BSTR grant program funds, with the exception of funds states and tribes use to capitalize a revolving loan fund under CERCLA 128(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I), are eligible for inclusion in PPGs, and may be included in a PPG at the request of the appropriate official of an eligible entity, subject to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 31 and 40 CFR 35.001 through 35.138 and 35.500 through 35.538. A Region should notify the Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response when it plans to award Brownfield grant program funds as part of a PPG. Dated: May 4, 2006. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-7335 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8169-7] Notice of Open Meeting, Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB), Workshop on the Use of Captive Insurance as a Financial Assurance Mechanism AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Financial Advisory Board will hold an open meeting of its Financial Assurance Project Workgroup. EFAB is chartered with providing analysis and advice to the EPA Administrator and EPA program offices on issues relating to environmental finance. The purpose of this meeting is for the EFAB to gather information and ideas with respect to the use of captive insurance as a financial assurance tool in EPA programs. The day will be structured to address this issue via a series of presentations and panel discussions involving Federal environmental officials, State insurance regulators, insurance rating and information analysts, insurance industry professionals, and State environmental regulators. The meeting is open to the public with seating available on a first come first served basis. Due to building security requirements, all members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance no later than Monday, June 17, 2006. DATES: June 27, 2006 from 9 a.m.-3:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: ConEdison, 4 Irving Place, 19th Floor Auditorium, New York, NY 10003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register for the workshop or to obtain further information, contact Timothy McProuty, U.S. EPA, EFAB Staff, at 202-564-4996 or *mcprouty.timothy@epa.gov* . For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Timothy McProuty at 202-564-4996 or *mcprouty.timothy@epa.gov* . To request accommodation of disability, please contact Timothy McProuty, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Dated: May 3, 2006. Joseph Dillon, Director, Office of Enterprise Technology and Innovation. [FR Doc. E6-7339 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-8169-8; EPA-HQ-OA-2005-0003] Report on ECOS-EPA Performance-Based Environmental Programs: Proposed Initial Implementation Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice seeks public comment about proposed actions resulting from a collaborative effort between EPA and representatives from the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS). ECOS and EPA have developed a series of action recommendations to: identify, develop, and implement incentives for top environmental performers that are part of state and federal performance-based environmental programs; facilitate the integration of performance based programs into EPA and State Agencies; and enhance marketing and outreach of performance based programs. Today's recommended actions build on preliminary ideas that EPA provided for public comment on August 4, 2005 (70 FR 44921), and a public meeting held in Chicago, IL on October 19, 2005. DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2005-0003 by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov* : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: docket.oei@epa.gov.* • *Fax:* 202-566-0224. • *Mail:* Office of Administrator Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. 4:30 p.m. M-F), special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2005-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *www.regulations.gov,* or via e-mail. The *www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is

(202)566-1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Administrator Docket is

(202)566-1752). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Sachs, Performance Incentives Division, Office of the Administrator, Mailcode 1808T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460, phone number 202-566-2884, fax number 202-566-0966, e-mail address *sachs.robert@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me? Today's notice applies to you if you are interested in issues regarding performance-based environmental programs, and state and federal roles regarding such programs. B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. *Tips for Preparing Your Comments.* When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, **Federal Register** date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background On June 26, 2000, The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)launched the National Environmental Performance Track program (Performance Track). The program is designed to recognize and encourage top environmental performers who go beyond regulatory requirements to attain levels of environmental performance and management that benefit the environment. The program design was published in the **Federal Register** on July 6, 2000 (65 FR 41655). On April 22, 2004, EPA published a final rule that established certain regulatory incentives for Performance Track members (69 FR 21737). On May 17, 2004, EPA published a number of changes to the program, including the creation of a Corporate Leader designation (69 FR 27922). On April 4, 2006 (71 FR 16862), EPA published a final rule with certain provisions applying to Performance Track Facilities that included alternatives for self-inspections of certain types of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA)units. Additional information on Performance Track, including up-to-date member information and program criteria, can be found at *http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack.* The program's current membership includes about 400 members from 46 states and Puerto Rico and represents virtually every major manufacturing sector as well as public sector facilities at the Federal, State, and local levels. Since the inception of the program, Performance Track members report that they have collectively reduced their water use by more than 1.9 billion gallons—enough to meet the water needs of Atlanta, Georgia for more than two weeks. Members have conserved close to 9,000 acres of land and have increased their use of recycled materials by more than 120,000 tons. In addition to EPA, more than 20 states have active state-level performance-based environmental programs, and an additional five states are currently developing programs. Nine states established programs before 2000, with the first program being implemented in 1995. The combined number of participants in these state programs is greater than 800. Many of these programs include dual membership with Performance Track at some level, while some exceed the federal program's criteria. The fundamental goal of performance-based environmental programs is to achieve environmental results greater than those achieved through traditional regulatory approaches. As such, these programs tend to focus on environmental outcomes such as reduced emissions, generating fewer tons of hazardous waste, or lower discharges of toxics to water, rather than operationally-based output measures such as the number of inspections or permits issued. These programs are designed to provide operational flexibility for the purpose of allowing high performers to focus their resources on improving their environmental performance beyond regulatory requirements. They also provide opportunities for State and Federal regulators, as well as the regulated community, to more strategically target their financial and human resources in order to produce better overall environmental results. III. Proposed Initial Implementation Actions Introduction During the past year, staff from the Environmental Council of the States

(ECOS)and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)collaborated on three workgroups that sought to improve the effectiveness and enhance the value of the National Environmental Performance Track (Performance Track) program, as well as similar state performance-based environmental programs. State and EPA representatives participated in workgroups which covered incentives, state integration, and outreach and recruiting. Information about, and recommendations from, the two workgroups on integration and incentives were highlighted in an August 2005 **Federal Register** Notice (70 FR 44921). The third workgroup on outreach and recruiting, which met on an informal basis, also offered recommendations and these are included here as well. This document identifies the initial actions the collective workgroups recommend for EPA and the states to take to work towards improved performance-based programs. These recommendations are intended to encourage environmental performance beyond regulatory requirements; no actions will be undertaken that could pose a threat to public health and the environment, or in any way weaken existing environmental laws. As an overarching measure, the workgroups recommend that the ECOS President and EPA Administrator express their support for the workgroups' planned actions via some type of formal communication. More specifically, this report recommends a series of actions be taken that the workgroups believe will improve the implementation of performance-based environmental programs, resulting in greater protection to human health and the environment beyond those which can be achieved through traditional regulatory efforts alone. To ensure that these recommendations are effectively implemented, the performance-based programs to which these recommendations apply should be able to demonstrate measurable environmental results, include a process for evaluating the extent to which they are achieving environmental outcomes, provide a mechanism for removal of members that fail to meet established compliance criteria, and provide meaningful information on how such programs can be improved over time (similar to the “continuous improvement” philosophy embodied in environmental management systems). Finally, the three individual workgroups recommend that the ECOS and EPA performance-based program workgroup members continue to work collaboratively in a combined workgroup to implement these recommendations for Performance Track and state performance-based environmental programs. Background In 2004, the Environmental Council of the States conducted a survey to determine the extent of state support for performance-based environmental programs. The information ECOS gathered served as the basis for its report issued in January 2005 (ECOS Report). The ECOS Report acknowledged wide state support for such performance-based programs and their important role in supplementing traditional regulatory approaches to achieve greater environmental protection and encourage facilities to go beyond compliance. The ECOS Report also recommended that EPA take action in four areas:

(1)Support state environmental performance-based programs and state efforts to work with Performance Track;

(2)assure program support from all EPA program offices;

(3)provide better incentives to participants faster; and

(4)conduct more strategic marketing and education of performance-based environmental programs. Beginning in January 2005, two “formal” workgroups (incentives and integration), comprised of state and EPA representatives, worked to develop specific recommendations that will lead to the outcomes envisioned in areas 1 through 3 in the ECOS Report. Recommendations from a third “informal” workgroup addressing area 4 (marketing and education) began later and also are included here. This Report focuses on the recommendations that the three workgroups propose initially be taken to meet the goals cited by ECOS. EPA solicited public comment on the activities and preliminary recommendations of the incentives and integration workgroups in an August 2005 **Federal Register** Notice, (70 FR 44921). In addition, EPA held a public meeting in Chicago on October 19, 2005, to solicit additional input. Comments received and EPA's Response to Comments are available in the Federal Government Docket System number: EPA-HQ-OA-2005-0003 at *http://www.regulations.gov/.* Initial Implementation Actions 1. Incorporate Performance Track and State Performance-Based Environmental Programs Into EPA-State Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability Processes States and EPA recognize that performance-based environmental programs are an important and necessary tool in encouraging environmental performance beyond regulatory requirements, and not a tool to roll-back or lower environmental compliance. They further recognize that integration of performance-based programs into the various planning, budgeting, and accountability systems will facilitate their use. As such, we recommend that EPA take the following actions to support Performance Track and/or state performance-based environmental programs: A. Add specific language to the Agency's “National Environmental Performance Partnership System” (NEPPS) national guidance to encourage the inclusion of appropriate state-run performance-based environmental programs in Performance Partnership Agreements (PPAs), Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), and/or state-EPA workplans when and where such programs are in keeping with Federal and State priorities and strategic goals. For compliance-related activities, EPA is engaged with the States in addressing where it may be appropriate to recognize and/or provide resource flexibility for alternative approaches to achieving compliance. [February-May 2006] B. Include text that supports integration of Performance Track and state performance-based program activities into EPA and State Agency planning documents; e.g., Strategic Plans, Regional Plans, and National Program Guidances. [FY 2006] C. Educate EPA NEPPS regional coordinators and state performance-based program contacts on ways to integrate performance-based environmental programs into the EPA-State planning and budgeting processes. [FY 2006] • Conduct a workshop in Denver on January 23, 2006, in conjunction with the Innovations Symposium. [Completed, approximately 80 participants attended] • Work with those states that did not attend the pre-symposium workshop to ensure they have a working knowledge of the content. [Ongoing] • Partner with a select number of states to integrate performance-based environmental programs into the EPA-State planning and budgeting processes for FY07; these will serve as models in future years for other interested states. [February-April 2006] D. EPA will pilot, with one or two states, a review of the state's performance-based program under Element 13 of the State Review Framework 1 that was developed jointly by EPA and ECOS. To be eligible for this pilot, the state(s) compliance assurance program must have had a successful review under Elements 1-12 of the Framework. EPA will work collaboratively with the pilot state(s) in the development and review of the proposal. EPA will provide the pilot state(s) with a timely and definitive response as to whether the proposals are successful. A successful performance-based program review under Element 13 could result in a state receiving recognition or resource flexibility credit in the context of their compliance assurance program. The preferred nature of the credit would be identified by the state(s) in their proposal, would be determined during the review process, and could include a spectrum of recognition and resource flexibility credit for performance-based programs that provide alternative approaches for assuring and exceeding compliance. [Currently under development] 1 The State Review Framework incorporates twelve mandatory elements, based on criteria found in long standing policy agreed to by EPA and states. A thirteenth optional element is included in this structure to allow states the opportunity to discuss alternative and innovative approaches to compliance. (For more information see: *http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/resources/publications/data/systems/air/2005conf/framework2.pdf* ). E. Performance-based environmental programs have been used in certain instances to address specific national, state, or regional environmental challenges. Use of such performance-based programs should be encouraged on a broader scale in cases where a state wants to include language in its work plans to describe how its performance-based program will be used to address a state or regional environmental challenge. • Develop guidance for FY07 on how states can count reductions achieved through Performance Track or similar state performance-based environmental programs toward the goals of national initiatives such as the reduction in priority chemicals under the Resource Conservation Challenge. [September 2006] • Partner with the EPA Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program to develop guidelines providing states within the watershed with credit for the nutrient reductions achieved via performance-based programs. [FY 2006] • Encourage the use of “Challenge Commitments.” Some EPA National Programs and Regional Offices working with their partner states have already implemented, or are in the process of identifying and implementing, Challenge Commitments in the areas of reductions in greenhouse gases, priority chemicals, air emissions, and energy use. [Ongoing] 2. Prioritize and Implement High Value Incentives in the Near Term EPA will expand its efforts to work with interested states to implement expedited permitting, enhance recognition, and facilitate the use of existing flexibilities for members of Performance Track and state performance-based environmental programs. As part of this effort, EPA and the states will work to communicate effectively with each other, as well as with the public. This will be accomplished through the use of outreach materials targeted at educating staff and the public about performance-based environmental programs and the development of tools that help to expedite the implementation of particular incentives. The combined ECOS-EPA performance-based program workgroup (referenced earlier in this report) intends to track interest and adoption of individual incentives among state and federal program members, as well as to seek and consider appropriate public input. Consistent with program criteria for maintaining membership in performance-based programs, incentives will not result in a net reduction in environmental performance and protection of human health and the environment. Expedite Permitting A. Where states are the lead permitting authority, EPA will partner with interested states to give Performance Track facilities priority placement in the state permitting queue. Georgia, Indiana, Texas, Oregon, and other states are either in the process of implementing, or have already implemented, expedited permitting initiatives. To facilitate identification of Performance Track facilities eligible for and interested in expedited priority permitting, EPA will provide states with lists of the permits held by Performance Track member facilities. Where EPA is the lead permitting authority, and a member of a state performance-based program seeks expedited permitting, the state shall inform EPA of the facility's eligibility for this initiative. [Ongoing] B. EPA will reach out to States that did not attend the pre-symposium workshop in Denver, Colorado, on January 23, 2006, to inform them of the workshop's content and to enlist their participation in expediting permitting. [February-May 2006] C. EPA will issue state and regional NPDES permitting authorities a one-permit credit, applied to their backlogged, priority NPDES permits, when they expedite review of a NPDES permit re-issuance or modification for a Performance Track facility under competitive pressure. EPA is also developing an ongoing “tickler list” of Performance Track facility NPDES permits that will expire within the next 9-12 month period to encourage states to consider, at their discretion, expediting re-issuance of the permits. ( **Note:** A state would receive credit for facilities that are members of its own performance-based program as part of the strategy for addressing priority permits that they submit to EPA.) [Currently underway] D. EPA will be conducting workshops for permit authorities and facilities on how to draft flexible air permits and use flexible air permitting techniques within existing standards and regulations ( *http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/meta/m5279.html* ). While any permitted facility interested in working with permitting authorities to obtain a flexible air permit will be eligible, EPA plans to give priority assistance to Performance Track facilities. [Currently under development] E. EPA will share information with states on expedited processes that have been successfully used in states, work to establish expedited processes for air permitting in states where they do not currently exist, and conduct pilots using innovative components such as electronic permitting to facilitate expedited permitting processes. EPA will then share the lessons learned from these pilot efforts. [March-December 2006] Enhance Recognition F. EPA will, and interested States are encouraged to, provide congratulatory letters either together or individually to new members of Performance Track and state performance-based environmental programs. These letters will encourage the facility to apply to its respective state or federal program counterpart. [Semi-annually, at conclusion of Performance Track application rounds] G. EPA and States will work together to collect and publicize state program or Performance Track member success stories in the monthly Performance Track newsletter. [Ongoing] H. States and EPA will coordinate recognition ceremonies when appropriate and EPA will communicate to relevant states when EPA conducts recognition ceremonies in their area. [Ongoing] Facilitate Existing Flexibilities I. EPA will collect and publicize examples of flexibility available through existing guidance and regulations and, in coordination with permitting authorities and state performance-based program contacts, encourage performance-based program facilities to utilize them where appropriate. [Ongoing] Some examples include: • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency developed a Stationary Source Synthetic Minor permit for IBM: Under this permit, in return for meeting lower emissions limits for specified HAPs than otherwise required, IBM is eligible for simpler emissions calculations and recordkeeping. The IBM permit reduces the frequency of calculating and recording emissions from monthly (12-month rolling averages) to annually (total calendar year calculations). • Permitting approach for Steele County, MN, indirect dischargers: Under the CWA pretreatment program, the POTW serves as the permitting authority for its indirect dischargers. In the Steele County project, in return for meeting a 20% effluent reduction goal for specified metals, participating indirect dischargers are eligible for reduced frequency of monitoring. J. EPA will document examples of Performance Track facilities that have reached agreement with state permitting authorities to reduce their NPDES effluent monitoring frequencies, consistent with existing EPA policy, while maintaining a high degree of confidence in their monitoring data. EPA will publicize and share these facilities' experiences with Performance Track and state performance-based environmental program members so that other facilities may consider these approaches in consultation with their permitting authorities. [February-June 2006] 3. Improve State/EPA Coordination of Strategic Marketing and Education of Performance-Based Programs. To improve marketing, outreach, and recruitment coordination, ECOS and EPA will take the following steps: A. EPA and states will share program branding strategies to increase information sharing, idea generation, and learning from other programs. [Ongoing] B. Interested states and EPA's Performance Track staff will sponsor a one-day workshop to focus specifically on marketing, outreach, and recruitment. The workshop will highlight the importance of these functions and how to improve coordination. [May 11, 2006] C. EPA and states will explore the possibility of developing a brochure, fact sheet, and/or slide presentation materials that states can customize for outreach purposes. In addition, EPA will produce standard language about Performance Track and state performance-based programs that interested states may use in their publications. [Ongoing] D. EPA and states will develop an online catalog identifying those sectors that may be of greatest interest for recruitment each year by EPA and states. Sample criteria for selection of sector candidates include a strong economic presence or high profile, significant progress in improving environmental performance, or opportunities for engaging facilities in efforts to address priority environmental problems. [Ongoing] 4. Continue Work of ECOS/EPA Performance-Based Environmental Program Workgroup ECOS and EPA workgroup members will continue to work collaboratively to implement the recommendations for Performance Track and state performance-based environmental programs. The workgroup will be led by the chair of the ECOS Cross-media Committee and EPA's Director of the National Center for Environmental Innovation, with members drawn from State and EPA program offices, Performance Track, and state performance-based environmental programs. The workgroup will meet on a regular basis to sustain focus and energy, and will report periodically to the ECOS President, EPA Administrator, and EPA's Innovation Action Network (IAN), comprised of the Agency's Deputy Assistant and Associate Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, and the Co-chairs of the ECOS Cross-media Committee. In addition, workgroup reports will be shared with state performance program staff and through regular EPA/state monthly calls. Dated: May 10, 2006. Robert S. Benson, Acting Director, Office of Business and Community Innovation. [FR Doc. E6-7333 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act; Meeting Date & Time: Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 10 a.m. Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor). Status: This meeting will be open to the public. Items to be discussed: Correction and approval of minutes. Advisory Opinion 2006-15: TransCanada Corporation by counsel, Jonathan D. Simon. Routine Administrative Matters. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Biersack, Press Officer, Telephone:

(202)694-1220. Mary W. Dove, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-4581 Filed 5-11-06; 2:34 pm]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

7 references not yet in our index