Notices. Notice of record of decision

24,861 words·~113 min read·/register/2006/07/03/06-5972

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

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Record of Decision for Navy Air-to-Ground Training at Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. ACTION: Notice of record of decision. SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy announces its decision to conduct all components of “air-to-ground ordnance delivery and training” of integrated and sustainment levels of the Fleet Forces Command's Fleet Readiness Training Program at Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida.

Air-to-ground readiness training includes delivery of inert and high-explosive ordnance from tactical jets such as the Navy's Hornet and Super Hornet strike/fighter aircraft. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Will Sloger, Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Code ES12), 2155 Eagle Drive, North Charleston, SC 29406, telephone 843-820-5797. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the entire Record of Decision

(ROD)is provided as follows: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c), and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that implement NEPA procedures, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, the Department of the Navy announces its decision to conduct all components of “air-to-ground ordnance delivery and training” of the Fleet Forces Command's Fleet Readiness Training Program

(FRTP)at Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR). The proposed training at APAFR will be accomplished as set out in alternative 6, described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)as the preferred alternative. The Navy proposes to expand APAFR's capabilities to allow delivery of high explosive

(HE)ordnance during air-to-ground ordnance delivery training, a critical element of FRTP. Training would originate from afloat Navy carrier strike groups

(CSG)operating in either the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico. The purpose of the proposed action is to improve and enhance the number and location of range resources for the FRTP and, consequently, increase its flexibility to conduct training in preparation for deploying CSGs in support of national defense missions. Section 5062 of Title 10 of the United States Code directs the Chief of Naval Operations to organize, train, and equip Naval forces for combat. To fulfill its statutory mission, the Atlantic Fleet needs combat-capable air forces ready to deploy worldwide. Three FRTP training exercises are typically conducted annually. Depending on world conditions and military requirements, up to six exercises could occur within a given year. At APAFR, each exercise would be expected to use the range for 20 days (10 days for exercise activities, seven days for explosive ordnance disposal [EOD] sweeps, plus a three-day backup). As part of training conducted during the various phases of the FRTP, the Navy would continue its use of APAFR and other ranges near the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico such as the Navy ranges at Rodman, FL and Lake George, FL; the Marine Corps ranges at Townsend, GA (operated by the Georgia Army National Guard), and Cherry Point, NC; the Mississippi National Guard range at Camp Shelby, MS; and the Air Force range at Dare County, NC for delivery of inert ordnance, and the Air Force's Eglin and Navy's Pinecastle Ranges for both inert and HE deliveries. The Air Force worked with the Navy as a cooperating agency throughout the NEPA process. They will, as the owner of APAFR, make a decision regarding the Navy's desire to conduct all components of air-to-ground ordnance delivery there. The Air Force intends to document that decision in their own ROD, to be signed after the Navy signs this document. The Navy used a screening process to identify potential range locations to support and enhance flexibility in executing the FRTP. The first step was to identify the range parameters needed to achieve the proposed improvement and enhancement (number and location) of range resources in support of FRTP aircrew training. These parameters are:

(1)Time/distance from CSG operating areas to the range,

(2)range dimensions, and

(3)airspace. Initially the Navy identified nine candidate ranges for conducting all components of air-to-ground training exercises associated with the FRTP. Two of the candidate ranges, Pinecastle and Eglin, were eliminated from further consideration as candidates as use of HE ordnance already occurs at these ranges and therefore not serve to improve or enhance range availability for FRTP. Of the seven remaining ranges, six (Rodman, Lake George, Townsend, Dare County, Camp Shelby, Cherry Point) have inadequate range dimensions and therefore failed to meet one of the three training parameters. APAFR was the only range that met all three parameters. The Navy also evaluated other potential options including alternative training technologies ( *e.g.* , models/simulators), development of a new range, and use of only inert/practice ordnance. These options did not meet the purpose and need of the aircrew training enhancement objectives because they do not create the same high-stress training environment and/or emotional conditioning required for combat deployment overseas. A Draft and Final EIS were prepared to assess the impacts of six alternatives within APAFR. Each of these six alternatives provides for a different mix in the use of HE ordnance on the Foxtrot, Echo, Alpha, and Alpha Plus target areas within the APAFR. The comparative analysis of the six alternatives was accomplished by first evaluating elements common to all alternatives and then evaluating the impacts associated with use of HE ordnance. The EIS also evaluated the no-action alternative of not expanding Navy's use of APAFR for delivery of HE ordnance. *Public Involvement:* Public involvement was effected through a public and agency scoping process from February through March 2003 that included publication of a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS in the **Federal Register** and three scoping meetings to actively solicit input from the public, local governments, Federal and State agencies, and environmental groups; An Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning (IICEP) and Agency consultation; a 45-day public comment period that included public hearings in three locations in central Florida to provide an opportunity for the public to evaluate the proposal and analyses contained in the Draft EIS; and a 30-day no action period to allow public review of the Final EIS. The Final EIS included identification of the preferred alternative, mitigation measures to reduce environmental consequences, errata, and public and agency comments on the Draft EIS and responses to those comments. *Alternatives Analyzed:* Six air-to-ground training alternatives within APAFR were identified and carried forward for detailed analyses in the EIS. Each of the six alternatives provided a different mix in the use of proposed HE targets on Foxtrot, Echo, Alpha, and Alpha Plus allowable target placement areas

(ATPA)for HE training. The proposed action also includes common elements that would be implemented along with the selected air-to-ground HE ordnance alternative. The common elements include delivery of air-to-ground inert/practice munitions on existing targets in the Bravo, Foxtrot, Charlie, and Echo impact areas at APAFR. Some training not involving air-to-ground deliveries (e.g. combat search-and-rescue) would occur outside the impact areas. The common elements and the locations where training would occur, while consistent with existing training activities at APAFR, would represent an increase in the amount of Navy training occurring at APAFR. The Navy used an operational risk management analysis

(ORMA)to assess the risks associated with the use of HE ordnance and to identify, evaluate, and recommend control measures that would be needed to limit or deny access to particular parts of the APAFR hazard area in conjunction with HE ordnance air-to-ground training. The Air Force, as the owner of APAFR, determined the necessary control measures based on the ORMA recommendations and other factors such as feasibility, security, and cost. Control measures, which will be incorporated into APAFR's supplement to Air Force Instruction 13-212, *Range Planning and Operations* , include: access restrictions, mandatory EOD escort, and geographic limitations on civilian activities such as hunting/fishing, grazing, and camping. These measures will reduce potential risks to all personnel who work on or visit APAFR. The Navy and the Air Force identified alternative six, use of Alpha Plus, as the preferred alternative in the Draft and Final EIS. The Alpha Plus range consists of the existing Alpha range and an additional 612 acres (248 hectares) in Management Unit 6 to the north of Alpha, an area that has been closed to the public since 1996. Within the Alpha Plus range, an allowable target placement area

(ATPA)has been defined with a 300-foot perimeter buffer zone to account for the overall accuracy of non-guided and guided delivery ordnance. The environmentally preferred alternative is alternative five, use of the Alpha range only for HE ordnance. However, alternative five, due to its modest dimensions and limited ability to support target development and placement, limits training and operational flexibility. The preferred alternative would have slightly greater impact than the environmentally preferred alternative in the following areas: Noise, earth resources, water resources, land use and recreation, biological resources, environmental justice, and military activities. The no-action alternative would have the least potential for adverse environmental consequences. The location of the Alpha Plus ATPA in the center of APAFR reduces the effect of training on the natural and human environment both on and off the base. The most noticeable effect off-base is noise. *Decision:* After considering the potential environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative, the five alternative training scenarios, and the no-action alternative, as well as other factors related to national defense, the Navy has decided to implement the Preferred Alternative to expand live ordnance air-to-ground training capabilities at APAFR utilizing the Alpha Plus Range. This action will also improve and enhance the Atlantic Fleet's depth of range resources and increase its flexibility to conduct training. The 1,162 acres (420 ha) within the Alpha Plus Range provide substantial target diversity options to maximize training benefits to Navy pilots. The size of Alpha Plus ensures that adequate room is available, based on training requirements, for a sufficient number of targets and for proper separation distance between targets. Adequate room is also available for future target relocation based on training requirements. *Consequences:* In the EIS, the Navy analyzed the environmental impacts that could occur as a result of implementing the common elements combined with each of the six APAFR alternatives. This Record of Decision will focus on the impacts associated with the preferred alternative, use of Alpha Plus. The EIS analyzed environmental impacts and the potential magnitude of those impacts relative to 13 categories of environmental resources: Airspace, noise, range safety, earth resources, water resources, air quality, land use and recreation, biological resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, environmental justice, hazardous waste and materials, and military activities. Annual use of APAFR by the Navy for integrated and sustainment training would vary depending on, among other things, the availability of other East Coast ranges for training. To account for that variability, the impact analysis in the EIS considers both typical (three exercises) and maximum (six exercises) annual use. A discussion of those resource categories where the potential for significant impacts was identified or that were the subject of substantial comments follows. *Airspace:* Overall use of the designated altitude reservation airspace blocks and Restricted Airspace on APAFR would increase during any Navy exercise, but maximum use of any specific airspace element at one time would not exceed airspace capacity or the ability of controllers to manage the traffic. No changes to airspace would be required for implementation. No adverse impacts to the airspace use and management are anticipated. *Noise:* The noise exposure level on the ground at APAFR will be affected by aircraft operations in the Military Operating Areas

(MOAs)and Restricted Airspace, and air-to-ground ordnance deliveries. The Federal Aviation Administration, other federal agencies, the Air Force, and the Navy identify the day/night average noise level

(DNL)65-dBA contour as a threshold level above which human exposure to aircraft noise may cause a significant impact. Noise generated from aircraft sorties in the MOAs and Restricted Airspace would not exceed the DNL 65-dBA. Impulsive sounds such as a muzzle blast at a firing point (>62 dBC) would remain within the boundaries of the range, impacting only a very small area of the east clear zone for the runway at the main base, for noise generated from the firing of projectiles from weapons and the detonation of HE ordnance. The associated overpressure that accompanies the detonation of HE is measured as blast peak overpressure (dBP). The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, has identified 140 dBP as the maximum recommended unprotected exposure level necessary to prevent physiological damage to the human eardrum; the 130- and 140-dBP contours would be largely confined to the impact areas or just beyond. The 115-decibel

(dBP)peak noise contour from HE detention would extend over the main base and off range, approximately 22,420 acres (9,073ha). Within the affected area, a low to moderate risk of noise complaints could be expected. *Range Safety:* There would be minimal increases in the risk of bird/aircraft strikes; the risk of Class A aircraft mishaps due to increased operations would be relatively unchanged. Ground safety risks remain minimal. All weapon safety footprints (hazard areas) for delivered ordnance would remain within the range boundaries. There would be minimal risk to the public, since they will be precluded from the hazard areas during the exercise, and from areas designated as “off-limits” permanently. Military and civilian employees and contractors would have EOD escorts when entering designated off-limits areas. *Earth Resources:* Soils could be disturbed due to target construction, target maintenance, ordnance impacts, ordnance disposal activities, new road and scoring tower construction, upgrades to roads, and road maintenance. The maximum area of soil disturbance, over the life of the action, in the ATPA and buffer zone would be approximately 1,351 acres (547 ha). Removal of vegetation would be limited within the target area. Disking of soil within a target area would occur only for tactical representation. The Seasonal Soil Compartment Model (SESOIL model) was utilized to calculate the potential for soil contaminant concentrations based on typical and maximum possible usage over a 10-year period that could result from HE ordnance detonations in Alpha Plus and expenditure of small arms rounds and 20-millimeter

(mm)cannon munitions at Echo and Foxtrot ranges. Small arms rounds and 20mm cannon munitions at Echo and Foxtrot ranges are the only component of the common elements that could result in the deposition of munitions constituents of concern in soils. Other munitions (e.g., practice bombs) would be cleared from the impact areas on a regular basis and are not expected to adversely contribute to hazardous constituent levels in soils. The estimated concentrations of munitions constituents of concern in soil predicted by the SESOIL model do not exceed Florida's risk based soil cleanup target levels (SCTLs). Use of HE ordnance could result in deposition of munitions constituents of concern in soil, including metals and explosives constituents. Under the typical and maximum-use scenarios, estimated munitions constituent concentrations are below industrial direct exposure SCTLs. Cyclo-1,3,5-trimethylene-2,4,6-trinitramine

(RDX)and 2,4,6-trinitrotuluene

(TNT)are the only munitions constituents of concern predicted to exceed groundwater leachability-based SCTLs. Estimated concentrations of metal constituents are not expected to exceed leachability-based SCTLs. Estimated concentrations of aluminum are expected to exceed the soil screening benchmark

(SSB)range in certain soil types. Under maximum conditions chromium is expected to exceed the lower end of the SSB range for certain soil types. *Water Resources:* No increase in flood hazard is expected as less than 1% of the 100-year floodplain area at APAFR would be impacted. The proposed action is consistent with the mandate of Executive Order

(EO)11988. Target locations and associated construction will avoid wetlands; therefore no permit is presently required in accordance with EO 11990. There is a potential that use of HE could impact wetlands in the future resulting from alteration of hydrology from the displacement/disturbance of soil from direct ordnance delivery activities. The level of impact to wetland areas described in the EIS could occur over a several decade period if the Navy moved targets around within the ATPA to those parts currently identified as wetlands. The reported number of acres impacted assumes that all wetland areas within the ATPA and associated 300-foot buffers would be impacted. The maximum number of acres of wetlands potentially impacted would be 482 acres (195 ha). (The wetland delineation used to determine that acreage was based on photogrametric interpretation, not actual field surveys.) A 2005 wetland delineation of specific portions of the Alpha Plus ATPA, using the methodology established in the * Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, * indicates the number of acres impacted may be overestimated. There are no plans to move the targets and the Navy would conduct the proper analysis and possible permitting if target movement is required. Values predicted by the Summers model equation for computing time-varying pollutant concentrations in the aquifer beneath the area of contaminated soil to predict constituents levels in groundwater, as modeled for a 10-year period, are not expected to exceed background concentrations for the small arms/20mm range activities. Maximum-modeled values of lead concentrations deposited to surface water for the common elements are estimated to be well below the surface water ecological screening criteria established for lead by both the FDEP and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Comparisons of predicted lead deposition in bottom sediments of water bodies to values presented in the Florida Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines for inland waters indicates no ecological concern associated with the lead concentration in sediments. Concentrations of RDX and TNT, from use of HE ordnance, were calculated in surface runoff using the highest soil concentration predicted by the SESOIL model. Predicted concentrations under both the typical- and maximum-use did not exceed the FDEP surface water quality clean-up target levels available for these constituents. RDX could potentially migrate through the soil column and into groundwater at concentrations above the cleanup target levels. No drinking water standard has been established for this constituent. Given that surficial groundwater at the site is not currently used as potable supply, as well as the low potential for contaminants to reach the underlying potable water supply because of confining layers and exercise coincident unexploded ordnance clearance activities, risk to human receptors from groundwater exposure will be minimal. Risk to ecological receptors from exposure to contaminants is expected to be negligible as ecological receptors are not typically exposed to groundwater. Deposition of metal contaminates are not predicted to result in elevated surface water concentration. The results of the Summers model indicate that aluminum, chromium, or nickel from ordnance are not expected to leach to groundwater at levels that would exceed established FDEP groundwater criteria or standards in either the typical- or maximum-use scenarios. Although the predicted aluminum concentrations are higher than the Florida drinking water standard and groundwater cleanup target levels, the predicted value will not exceed the accepted background screening value established for APAFR. *Air Quality:* Emissions from the common elements represent less than a 1% increase for all criteria pollutants, except lead. Lead emissions would increase 10% and 20% over baseline levels for typical and maximum use of the range, respectively. This increase will remain within the boundaries of APAFR. However, the impacts to air quality or to human health resulting from the increased lead emissions will be negligible because modeled lead concentrations were well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Use of HE will result in an 18% (typical) to 34% (maximum) increase in particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), and an insignificant increase (<1%) for other criteria pollutants, such as ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide. The PM 10 emission increases over the baseline do not require a new air permit. The increases represent less than 1% of the PM 10 emissions for either Polk or Highlands Counties. Emissions of chromium and nickel pollutants will be negligible; therefore, on-range and off-range chemical exposures pose an insignificant impact to air quality or human health. Since APAFR is in attainment for all criteria pollutants and implementation of the preferred alternative would not cause an exceedance of the NAAQS, a conformity determination is not required. *Land Use and Recreation:* Approximately 22,420 acres (9,073 ha) outside APAFR boundaries would be impacted by the 115-dBP impulsive noise contour from HE detonation, including 150 residences. The entire on-base cantonment area, including the State of Florida Department of Corrections operated Avon Park Correctional Institution (1200-1300 inmates) and the Avon Park Youth Academy (200 youths), would be exposed to impulsive noise levels, that is the instantaneous sound generated by an explosion, greater than 115 dBP only when HE ordnance is expended during an exercise. Off-base land surrounding the range predominately support agriculture, rangeland, forestry, and wetlands. Ordnance noise increases are not expected to impact land use patterns, ownership, management, or plans and are not considered significant. A low to moderate risk of noise complaints is expected from the use of HE. Current land use within APAFR will be impacted by the proposed action. Short-term (60 to 120 days per year) impacts include the closure of a portion of or all areas of APAFR outside the main base during Navy training exercises. Long-term impacts include access restrictions to military, civilian employees, APAFR contractors, and the public for safety reasons within designated areas. Approximately 4,561 total acres (1,824 ha) will be designated off-limits for public users of the range. Access restrictions will affect APAFR's recreation, grazing, and forest management and other land management programs. All access decisions, both short-term and long-term, will be subject to the discretion of the APAFR Commander based on the ORMA, current training requirements, and past training activities. *Biological Resources:* Construction and maintenance of targets and use of the ATPAs will, over time, result in the degradation or loss of wildlife habitats. The primary impacts would be to the cutthroat grass and scrub communities. 369 acres (148 ha) of cutthroat grass community and 343 acres (137 ha) of scrub community will potentially be impacted. Timber, including planted pines and natural stands, will be harvested by APAFR within the public off-limits areas before the implementation of the proposed action. The total number of acres of timber to be impacted will be 2,388 acres; of that 1,970 acres are planted pine and 418 acres natural stand. Planned removal of planted pine stands will provide some potential ecological benefits related to habitat improvement to the Florida grasshopper sparrow

(FGS)and Florida scrub-jay

(FSJ)when the timber is removed. Effects to the 14 species listed under the Endangered Species Act that may occur or are known to occur at APAFR are addressed in the Biological Opinion

(BO)issued by the U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2005. Two plant species, hairy jointweed (also known as wireweed) and pigeonwing, are federally listed as endangered and threatened, respectively, under the Endangered Species Act. Dropping HE at Alpha Plus may affect, and would be likely to adversely affect both the hairy jointweed and the pigeonwing. Twelve listed animal species may occur or are known to occur in the vicinity of APAFR. The USFWS has concluded the Navy's proposed action will have “no effect” on: The Everglade snail kite, the sand skink, the bluetail mole skink, and the Highlands tiger beetle. USFWS also concluded alternative 6 “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” these species: Red-cockaded woodpecker, woodstork, Audubon's crested caracara, bald eagle, and the Florida panther. USFWS reached a determination of “may affect, likely to adversely affect” for the following species: The eastern indigo snake, the Florida scrub-jay, and the Florida grasshopper sparrow. In an Incidental Take Statement to the BO, the USFWS authorized incidental take of these three species resulting from implementation of alternative 6. No significant adverse impacts to migratory birds are expected from implementation of the proposed action. Declines in populations of game species (e.g., deer, feral hog, and mourning dove) at APAFR are not expected as a result of the Navy's action. Non-game species that are not afforded special protection by government (i.e., not federally and state-listed species) generally occur in populations able to tolerate localized declines. Local population declines, however, are not anticipated as a result of the Navy's proposed action at APAFR. *Socioeconomics:* The proposed action will not substantially affect regional socioeconomics. APAFR runs a variety of public natural resource and recreation programs that earn income for the range and are linked to the regional economy. Reductions in the recreation, cattle-grazing, and timber harvesting programs at APAFR as a result of short-term and long-term access restrictions will be negligible when combined to the region as a whole. No significant adverse impact on the local economy and surrounding communities is anticipated. *Cultural Resources:* The Navy performed Phase I field work for unsurveyed areas within the off-limits area. Compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA)was completed with a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the SHPO, Navy, and Air Force. Compliance efforts included consultation with the Florida SHPO and American Indian tribes; cultural resources inventory, and identification; and evaluation of identified resources for National Register of Historic Property

(NRHP)eligibility. No impacts to cultural resources are expected. *Environmental Justice:* Resource topics anticipated to have the greatest potential for impacts on human populations include noise, safety, and land use and recreation. Based on a review of the impacts, there will not be any disproportionately high or adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. *Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management:* There will be an increase in the quantity of waste generated from target maintenance; however, expected increases will have minimal impact on the current waste management or disposal process. A premature/inaccurate ordnance release or a weapon system malfunction could result in HE ordnance accidentally landing on Environmental Restoration Program/Compliance Sites at APAFR. Range scrap/debris will be generated as a result of air-to-ground training and will be collected and removed on a scheduled basis. *Military Activities:* On-ground military training activities will be permanently restricted from the 5,638 acres (2,282 ha) off-limits area. Remaining impact areas at Bravo/Foxtrot and Charlie/Echo will receive higher utilization because of the common element activities, but due to the existing low utilization (27% for each; 4,132 hours of remaining capacity) the impact areas will remain well below capacity. Therefore, the decrease in range time capacity will not jeopardize existing mission activities and additional training can be accomplished within on-ground safety limitations. *Agency Consultation and Coordination:* The Navy. The Navy consulted and coordinated with Federal and State agencies regarding the Proposed Action at APAFR throughout the Environmental Impact Analyses Process. Agencies reviewing biological and cultural resources were contacted early in the environmental planning process and received IICEP notification in February 2003. Formal section 7 consultation, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, was initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in January 2005. The USFWS concluded formal consultation when it issued a Biological Opinion in June 2005 with a determination of effect to each of the 14 listed species that may occur or are known to occur at APAFR. By letter dated March 25, 2005, the State of Florida agreed that the Navy's proposed training is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. Section 106 consultation was initiated with the Florida SHPO in April 2005, pursuant to the NHPA. Section 106 consultation was completed with the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement in August 2005. *Mitigation Measures:* Measures to avoid or minimize environmental impact from the Navy's proposed training activities at APAFR were incorporated into the basic proposed action as noted in 40 CFR 1502.14. These include actions, described below, designed to achieve reductions in the effect Navy training has on APAFR and the local community. *Range Safety:* The following mitigative actions will be taken to minimize safety risk: Provide EOD personnel to minimize adverse impacts associated with ground safety and explosive safety by escorting personnel into the Alpha Plus off-limits area, as necessary; use only impact fuses for delivery of HE ordnance; no use of HE ordnance between 10 pm and 7 am; live guided bomb unit

(GBU)drops would be limited to official daylight hours. *Earth Resources:* The following mitigative actions will be taken to minimize impacts to earth resources: Construct access roadways of materials resistant to erosion and rutting; monitor areas susceptible to erosion and rutting; limit vegetation clearing to only what is necessary to have tactically representative targets; limit soil disking to that required to support maintenance of targets and create firebreaks; use APAFR guidelines for erosion control. *Water Resources:* The mitigative actions taken to protect water resources at APAFR would be all of those listed to protect earth resources. *Land Use and Recreation:* The Navy will provide EOD personnel to minimize adverse impacts associated with ground safety and explosive safety by escorting personnel into the Alpha Plus off-limits area, as necessary. The Navy will provide advance notification of desired training periods to assist APAFR in scheduling range assets. *Biological Resources:* The following mitigative actions (listed as Terms and Conditions in the BO) will be taken to reduce potential environmental consequences to biological resources: Vehicle and equipment operators will be notified to avoid all snakes and burrows if at all possible. Target and construction maintenance teams will be educated to recognize the eastern indigo snake. If any snake is encountered, it will be avoided or allowed to leave the area on its own before vehicle or equipment use is resumed. Range personnel will conduct monitoring and management activities within the ATPAs, buffers, and public off-limit areas, including those areas where EOD escort is required. In addition, because implementation of the proposed action would result in the continuous presence of EOD personnel on the range, APAFR staff may conduct research activities currently prohibited due to the lack of EOD personnel in the HE areas on Bravo and Echo Ranges. Firebreaks will be in place around the entire Alpha Plus ATPA prior to the implementation of the Navy action. The Navy will support the Air Force's invasive exotic species monitoring and control program within the ATPAs, buffers, and public off-limit areas. The Navy will assist the Air Force in monitoring and control of the feral hog populations within the ATPA, buffers, and public off-limit areas. The Navy will coordinate with the Air Force to ensure that annual reports summarizing efforts to monitor the effects to listed species and their habitats are submitted by October 1st of each year. Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of a federally listed species, notification must be made to the nearest USFWS Law Enforcement Office. *Socioeconomics:* The Navy will provide EOD personnel to APAFR in an effort to minimize adverse impacts associated with reduced range access. No other mitigative actions are proposed. *Cultural Resources:* To minimize adverse impacts to potential cultural resources, the Navy will, according to the Memorandum of Agreement, ensure that the following measure will be carried out in consultation with the SHPO: if the Navy encounters unanticipated historic properties or effects, reasonable efforts will be made to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13(b). *Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management:* To minimize the potential for detonation of HE ordnance on the OB/OD TTF site northeast of the Alpha impact area, but within the greater Alpha Plus ATPA, the Navy has been working with the FDEP and Air Force on the removal of the OB/OD landfill unit. The removal action will be completed prior to the first exercise. No other adverse impacts are expected, therefore, there are no recommended mitigative actions to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts from the proposed action. *Military Activities:* The following mitigative actions will be taken to reduce potential impacts to military activities that are currently conducted on the range: Each Navy HE training event will be conducted within a block of no more than 10 days. All known unexploded ordnance

(UXO)will be disposed of within seven days of the 10-day HE block of range time, with roads being cleared first. Navy training exercises will be coordinated with other on-ground training missions, such as missions that are part of the Avon Park Air Ground Training Complex. *Comments Received on the Final EIS:* The Navy received a single letter regarding the Final EIS during the 30-day No Action Period. The letter, from the USEPA, concluded that EPA's initial concerns regarding the Draft EIS had been adequately addressed in the Final EIS but continued to emphasize the need to ensure functional replacement for the wetlands' value lost from this action. As previously discussed in the Water Resources subsection of the Consequences section, the Navy has chosen several target locations within the Alpha Plus ATPA for initial target placement. A wetland delineation was performed for the area encompassed by these locations. The USACOE concluded that no jurisdictional wetlands existed within these areas, therefore no permit is required under the Clean Water Action Section 404 permitting process. If in the future the Navy feels it needs to move target locations within the ATPA, it will ensure that the process for addressing impacts to wetlands is followed. Navy also received a comment letter from the Florida State Clearinghouse after the 30-day No-Action Period ended, forwarding comments from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). FDEP repeated two comments made during their earlier review of the Draft EIS. They requested an Environmental Monitoring Plan

(EMP)to formally establish baseline water quality conditions, parameters, and annual reporting requirements. FDEP also reiterated prior concern about the former open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) site within the Alpha Plus area. A formal EMP is not necessary to assure compliance with applicable statutes. Modeling and analysis done in support of the EIS indicated a small possibility of munitions constituents of concern making their way to the surficial aquifer but it is not anticipated to impact groundwater resources used for potable purposes. The Navy's assessment is based on a number of factors. While the modeling contains the assumption that no UXO cleanup would be done during a 10-year period of maximum use, the Navy has committed to completing UXO clearance after every exercise. Additionally, there is an intermediate aquifer that isolates the Floridan aquifer from the surficial aquifer. The Navy will also work closely with the Air Force to implement DoD Instruction

(DODI)4715.14. This instruction requires military ranges to assess whether a release of munitions constituents of concern has occurred off range and the risk to human health and the environment. When finished, the Air Force is required to release the results to the public. The Navy, as stated earlier in this ROD, has committed to funding the removal of the OB/OD landfill units located in the Alpha Plus ATPA and is working with FDEP to ensure full compliance. Removal of this unit, which is the only RCRA permitted unit within the Alpha Plus ATPA, will be complete in 2006. Response actions regarding impacts to any of the environmental restoration program sites in APAFR resulting from Navy training activities, including an inadvertent impact of ordnance, would be coordinated with the EPA, the FDEP, and other relevant stakeholders. *Summary:* In determining how best to expand APAFR's capabilities to allow the Navy to conduct all components of “air-to-ground ordnance delivery and training” of integrated and sustainment levels of the FRTP at the range, a critical element of which is delivery of HE ordnance, I considered impacts to the following areas: Airspace, noise, range safety, earth resources, water resources, air quality, land use and recreation, biological resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, environmental justice, hazardous waste and materials, and military activities. I have also taken into consideration the Navy's consultation with the USFWS regarding endangered species, the SHPO regarding cultural resources, and the USACOE regarding wetlands. I have also considered the comments sent to the Navy by the regulatory community, state and local governments, and the public. After carefully weighing all of these factors, I have determined that alternative 6, use of the Alpha Plus range for HE air-to-ground ordnance delivery combined with the common element activities, will best meet the needs of the Navy while minimizing the environmental impacts associated with the re-introduction of HE ordnance to the APAFR. Dated: June 21, 2006. BJ Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). [FR Doc. E6-10356 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Department of Education. SUMMARY: The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or faxed to

(202)395-6974. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following:

(1)Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement;

(2)Title;

(3)Summary of the collection;

(4)Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information;

(5)Respondents and frequency of collection; and

(6)Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. Dated: June 27, 2006. Angela C. Arrington, IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development *Type of Review:* Revision. *Title:* Data Collection for the Evaluation of the Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Program. *Frequency:* One-time. *Affected Public:* State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. *Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:* *Responses:* 881. *Burden Hours:* 808. *Abstract:* This submission requests approval for an evaluation of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program (LSL). LSL, established under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), is designed to improve the literacy skills and academic achievement of students by providing them with access to up-to-date school library materials, technologically advanced school library media centers, and professionally certified school library media specialists. The evaluation of this program is authorized by NCLB Title I, Part B, Subpart 4. Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from *http://edicsweb.ed.gov* , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 3066. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov* or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to *ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. [FR Doc. E6-10363 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Innovation and Improvement; Overview Information, Charter Schools Program

(CSP)Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year

(FY)2006. *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

(CFDA)Number:* 84.282B and 84.282C. *Dates:* Applications Available: July 3, 2006. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 17, 2006. *Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:* September 8, 2006. *Eligible Applicants: Planning and Initial Implementation (CFDA No. 84.282B):* Non-State educational agency (non-SEA) eligible applicants in States with a State statute specifically authorizing the establishment of charter schools and in which the SEA elects not to participate in the CSP or does not have an application approved under the CSP program. Note: *Eligible applicant* is defined in section 5210(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (ESEA). The following States currently have approved applications under the CSP: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin. In these States, non-SEA eligible applicants interested in participating in the CSP should contact the SEA for information related to the State's CSP subgrant competition. *Dissemination (CFDA No. 84.282C):* Charter schools, as defined in section 5210(1) of the ESEA. Note: A charter school may apply for funds to carry out dissemination activities, whether or not the charter school previously applied for or received funds under the CSP for planning or implementation, if the charter school has been in operation for at least three consecutive years and has demonstrated overall success, including—

(1)Substantial progress in improving student academic achievement;

(2)High levels of parent satisfaction; and

(3)The management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, financially viable charter school. *Estimated Available Funds:* $4,000,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $130,000-$175,000 per year. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $150,000 per year. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 20-40. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 36 months under CFDA No. 84.282B. Up to 24 months under CFDA No. 84.282C. Note: Planning and implementation grants awarded by the Secretary to non-SEA eligible applicants will be awarded for a period of up to 36 months, no more than 18 months of which may be used for planning and program design and no more than two years of which may be used for the initial implementation of a charter school. Dissemination grants are awarded for a period of up to two years. Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description *Purpose of Program:* The purpose of the CSP is to increase national understanding of the charter school model and to expand the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation by providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and to evaluate the effects of charter schools, including their effects on students, student academic achievement, staff, and parents. Non-SEA eligible applicants that propose to use grant funds for planning, program design, and implementation must apply under CFDA No. 84.282B. Non-SEA eligible applicants that request funds for dissemination activities must submit their applications under CFDA No. 84.282C. *Priority:* Under these competitions we are particularly interested in applications that address the following priority. *Invitational Priority:* For FY 2006 this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an applicant that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications. This priority is: The applicant proposes to plan, design, and implement, or in the case of a dissemination grant, disseminate information about, a high-quality charter high school in a geographic area in which a large proportion or number of public schools has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Title I, Part A of the ESEA. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221j. *Applicable Regulations:* The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. 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 only to institutions of higher education. Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 99 apply only to educational agencies or institutions. II. Award Information *Type of Award:* Discretionary grants. *Estimated Available Funds:* $4,000,000. *Estimated Range of Awards:* $130,000-$175,000 per year. *Estimated Average Size of Awards:* $150,000 per year. *Estimated Number of Awards:* 20-40. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. *Project Period:* Up to 36 months under CFDA No. 84.282B. Up to 24 months under CFDA No. 84.282C. Note: Planning and implementation grants awarded by the Secretary to non-SEA eligible applicants will be awarded for a period of up to 36 months, no more than 18 months of which may be used for planning and program design and no more than two years of which may be used for the initial implementation of a charter school. Dissemination grants are awarded for a period of up to two years. III. Eligibility Information 1. *Eligible Applicants:* Planning and Initial Implementation (CFDA No. 84.282B): Non-SEA eligible applicants in States with a State statute specifically authorizing the establishment of charter schools and in which the SEA elects not to participate in the CSP or does not have an application approved under the CSP program. Note: *Eligible applicant* is defined in section 5210(3) of the ESEA. The following States currently have approved applications under the CSP: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin. In these States, non-SEA eligible applicants interested in participating in the CSP should contact the SEA for information related to the State's CSP subgrant competition. *Dissemination (CFDA No. 84.282C):* Charter schools, as defined in section 5210(1) of the ESEA. Note: A charter school may apply for funds to carry out dissemination activities, whether or not the charter school previously applied for or received funds under the CSP for planning or implementation, if the charter school has been in operation for at least three consecutive years and has demonstrated overall success, including—

(1)Substantial progress in improving student academic achievement;

(2)High levels of parent satisfaction; and

(3)The management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, financially viable charter school. 2. *Cost Sharing or Matching:* These competitions do not involve cost sharing or matching. IV. Application and Submission Information 1. *Address to Request Application Package:* Erin Pfeltz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone:

(202)205-3525 or by e-mail: *erin.pfeltz@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 competition. *Page Limit:* The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. The Secretary strongly encourages applicants to limit Part III to the equivalent of no more than 50 pages, using the following standards: • A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs. • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch). The suggested page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III. 3. *Submission Dates and Times:* Applications Available: July 3, 2006. *Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:* August 17, 2006. Applications for grants under these competitions 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:* September 8, 2006. 4. *Intergovernmental Review:* These competitions are 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 these competitions. 5. *Funding Restrictions: Use of Funds for Post-Award Planning and Design of the Educational Program and Initial Implementation of the Charter School.* A non-SEA eligible applicant receiving a grant under this program may use the grant funds only for—

(a)Post-award planning and design of the educational program, which may include

(i)refinement of the desired educational results and of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results; and

(ii)professional development of teachers and other staff who will work in the charter school; and

(b)Initial implementation of the charter school, which may include

(i)informing the community about the school;

(ii)acquiring necessary equipment and educational materials and supplies;

(iii)acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and

(iv)other initial operational costs that cannot be met from State or local sources. *Use of Funds for Dissemination Activities.* A charter school may use these funds to assist other schools in adapting the charter school's program (or certain aspects of the charter school's program), or to disseminate information about the charter school through such activities as—

(a)Assisting other individuals with the planning and start-up of one or more new public schools, including charter schools, that are independent of the assisting charter school and the assisting charter school's developers and that agree to be held to at least as high a level of accountability as the assisting charter school;

(b)Developing partnerships with other public schools, including charter schools, designed to improve student performance in each of the schools participating in the partnership;

(c)Developing curriculum materials, assessments, and other materials that promote increased student achievement and are based on successful practices within the assisting charter school; and

(d)Conducting evaluations and developing materials that document the successful practices of the assisting charter school and that are designed to improve student performance in other schools. We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the *Applicable Regulations* section of this notice. 6. *Other Submission Requirements:* Applications for grants under these competitions 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 Charter School Program, CFDA Numbers 84.282B and 84.282C 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 Charter School 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://Grants.ed.gov/help/GrantsgovSubmissionProcedures. pdf.* • To submit your application via Grants.gov, you must complete all of 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 (ED 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: Erin Pfeltz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. FAX:

(202)205-5630. 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 84.282B or 84.282C), 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 84.282B or 84.282C), 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 84.282B or 84.282C), 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 (ED 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 *Selection Criteria:* Non-SEA eligible applicants applying for CSP grant funds must address both the statutory application requirements and the selection criteria described in the following paragraphs. Each applicant applying for CSP grant funds may choose to respond to the application requirements in the context of its responses to the selection criteria. The statutory application requirements for all applicants submitting under CFDA Nos. 84.282B and 84.282C are listed in paragraph

(a)in this section. The selection criteria for non-SEA applicants for * Planning, Program Design, and Implementation Grants (CFDA No. 84.282B) * are listed in paragraph

(b)in this section. The selection criteria for non-SEA applicants for *Dissemination Grants (CFDA No. 84.282C)* are listed in paragraph

(c)in this section.

(a)*Application Requirements (CFDA Nos. 84.282B and 84.282C).*

(i)Describe the educational program to be implemented by the proposed charter school, including how the program will enable all students to meet challenging State student academic achievement standards, the grade levels or ages of students to be served, and the curriculum and instructional practices to be used;

(ii)Describe how the charter school will be managed;

(iii)Describe the objectives of the charter school and the methods by which the charter school will determine its progress toward achieving those objectives;

(iv)Describe the administrative relationship between the charter school and the authorized public chartering agency;

(v)Describe how parents and other members of the community will be involved in the planning, program design, and implementation of the charter school;

(vi)Describe how the authorized public chartering agency will provide for continued operation of the charter school once the Federal grant has expired, if that agency determines that the charter school has met its objectives;

(vii)If the charter school desires the Secretary to consider waivers under the authority of the CSP, include a request and justification for waivers of any Federal statutory or regulatory provisions that the applicant believes are necessary for the successful operation of the charter school and a description of any State or local rules, generally applicable to public schools, that will be waived for, or otherwise not apply to, the school;

(viii)Describe how the grant funds will be used, including how these funds will be used in conjunction with other Federal programs administered by the Secretary;

(ix)Describe how students in the community will be informed about the charter school and be given an equal opportunity to attend the charter school;

(x)Describe how a charter school that is considered an LEA under State law, or an LEA in which a charter school is located, will comply with sections 613(a)(5) and 613(e)(1)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; and

(xi)If the eligible applicant desires to use grant funds for dissemination activities under section 5202(c)(2)(C), describe those activities and how those activities will involve charter schools and other public schools, LEAs, developers, and potential developers.

(b)*Selection Criteria (CFDA No. 84.282B).* The following selection criteria are from the authorizing statute for this program and 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. The maximum possible score for all the criteria in this section is 130 points. The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. In evaluating an application from a non-SEA eligible applicant for Planning, Program Design, and Implementation, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

(i)The quality of the proposed curriculum and instructional practices (20 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe the educational program to be implemented by the proposed charter school, including how the program will enable all students to meet challenging State student academic achievement standards, the grade levels or ages of students to be served, and the curriculum and instructional practices to be used.

(ii)The degree of flexibility afforded by the SEA and, if applicable, the LEA to the charter school (10 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to include a description of how the State's law establishes an administrative relationship between the charter school and the authorized public chartering agency and exempts the charter school from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools. The Secretary also encourages the applicant to include a description of the degree of autonomy the charter school will have over such matters as the charter school's budget, expenditures, daily operation, and personnel in accordance with its State's charter school law.

(iii)The extent of community support for the application (20 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe how parents and other members of the community will be informed about the charter school, and how students will be given an equal opportunity to attend the charter school.

(iv)The ambitiousness of the objectives for the charter school (10 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe the objectives for the charter school and how these grant funds will be used, including how these funds will be used in conjunction with other Federal programs administered by the Secretary, in meeting these objectives.

(v)The quality of the strategy for assessing achievement of those objectives (20 points).

(vi)The likelihood that the charter school will meet those objectives and improve educational results for students during and after the period of Federal financial assistance (10 points).

(vii)The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement (10 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe how parents and other members of the community will be involved in the planning, program design, and implementation of the charter school.

(viii)The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director; and the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that traditionally have been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (10 points).

(ix)The contribution the charter school will make in assisting educationally disadvantaged and other students to achieve to State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards (20 points).

(c)*Selection Criteria (CFDA No. 84.282C).* The following selection criteria are from the authorizing statute for this program and 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR. The maximum possible score for all the criteria in this section is 110 points. The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. In evaluating an application from a non-SEA eligible applicant for a dissemination grant, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

(i)The quality of the proposed dissemination activities and the likelihood that those activities will improve student achievement (30 points). Note: The Secretary encourages the applicant to describe the objectives for the proposed dissemination activities and the methods by which the charter school will determine its progress toward achieving those objectives.

(ii)The extent to which the school has demonstrated overall success, including—

(1)Substantial progress in improving student achievement (10 points);

(2)High levels of parent satisfaction (10 points); and

(3)The management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, financially viable charter school (10 points).

(iii)The extent to which the results of the proposed project will be disseminated in a manner that will enable others to use the information or strategies (20 points).

(iv)The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director and the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that traditionally have been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (10 points).

(v)The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (20 points). VI. Award Administration Information 1. *Award Notices:* If your application is successful, we will notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (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. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as specified by the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118. For specific requirements on grantee reporting, please go to the ED Performance Report Form 524B at *http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.* 4. *Performance Measures:* The goal of the CSP is to support the creation and development of a large number of high-quality charter schools that are free from State or local rules that inhibit flexible operation, are held accountable for enabling students to reach challenging State performance standards, and are open to all students. The Secretary has set three performance indicators to measure this goal:

(1)The number of States, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, with charter school laws,

(2)the number of charter schools in operation around the Nation, and

(3)the percentage of charter school students who are achieving at or above the proficient level on State examinations in mathematics and reading. Additionally, the Secretary has established the following measure to examine the efficiency of the CSP: Federal cost per student in implementing a successful school (defined as a school in operation for three or more years). All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report documenting their contribution in assisting the Department in meeting these performance measures. VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Pfeltz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W255, Washington, DC 20202-5970. Telephone:

(202)205-3525 or by e-mail: *erin.pfeltz@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: June 28, 2006. Christopher J. Doherty, Acting Assistant Deputy Secretary Office of Innovation and Improvement. [FR Doc. E6-10396 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Upward Bound Program AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed priority. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes to establish a priority under the Upward Bound Program. We are proposing to establish this priority to focus Federal resources on students most in need of academic assistance and to increase the effectiveness of the Upward Bound Program. We propose this priority to increase the number of low-income, first generation students with the “greatest academic need” for program services that participate in the Upward Bound program, and to provide all Upward Bound participants an opportunity to receive services for four years. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this proposed priority to Geraldine Smith, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., room 7020, Washington, DC 20006-8512. If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following address: *TRIO@ed.gov.* You must include the term “Upward Bound Comments” in the subject line of your electronic message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gaby Watts. Telephone:

(202)502-7545 or via Internet: *gaby.watts@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 contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation To Comment We invite you to submit comments regarding this proposed priority. We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program. During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed priority in room 7020, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this proposed priority. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Background The Upward Bound Program is one of eight programs known as the Federal TRIO Programs. Under the Upward Bound Program, the Department provides discretionary grants to institutions of higher education, public and private agencies and organizations, and combinations of institutions, agencies and organizations. The Upward Bound Program supports projects that are designed to generate, in eligible students, the skills and motivation necessary for success in education beyond secondary school. Projects under the Upward Bound Program provide, among other services, instruction in reading, writing, mathematics, science, study skills, and other subjects necessary for success in education beyond high school. An assessment of the Upward Bound Program using the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool resulted in an “Ineffective” rating because the program has not been able to demonstrate positive overall results. In 1991, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under contract to the Department of Education, initiated an ongoing evaluation of Upward Bound, based on a random assignment design. A 2004 report titled, *The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the Third Follow-Up Data Collection (“The Study”)* , found that the overall impact of Upward Bound programs on the high school and early college outcomes of participants was not significantly different from those of a control group. However, the Study did indicate that Upward Bound has a statistically significant positive impact on students with lower educational expectations. For students with lower educational expectations, i.e., students who did not expect to complete a bachelor's degree when they applied to Upward Bound, participation in the program more than doubles the likelihood those students attend a four-year college or university, raising the enrollment rate from 18 percent to 38 percent. For this group of students, participation in Upward Bound also improves high school preparation for postsecondary education, increasing the total number of academic credits earned in high school and the number of Advanced Placement credits earned. It also increases early college persistence. The Study may be reviewed at: *http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/upward/upward-3rd-report.html.* It is difficult, however, to screen applicants based on their educational expectations. There is no reliable way of objectively determining a person's expectation. If it became common knowledge that students with lower expectations were more likely to be admitted than were students with higher expectations, applicants would have a strong incentive to understate their educational expectations in the application process. We do know that low educational expectations are more prevalent among students with high academic risk for failure. Therefore, we propose this priority to target the program to students with a high academic risk for failure. Under this proposed priority, otherwise eligible students deemed to have “high academic risk for failure” would be those who— 1. Have not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments in reading/language arts for grade eight; 2. Have not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments in math for grade eight; or 3. Have a grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for the most recent school year for which grade point averages are available. These criteria are consistent with the overall purpose and goals of the Upward Bound Program. Section 402C(a) of the HEA requires Upward Bound projects to be designed to generate skills and motivation necessary for success in education beyond secondary school. The Department's regulations for the Upward Bound Program in 34 CFR 645.3 implement this statutory goal in the eligibility requirements for participating in an Upward Bound project. Those requirements specify, among other things, that a student must have a need for academic support, as determined by the grantee, in order to pursue successfully a program of education beyond high school. Commonly used criteria for determining a student's “need for academic support” are the student's GPA and performance on standardized tests. In addition, by using State academic achievement assessments to determine student eligibility for services, Upward Bound projects will be able to align their programs with the requirements and activities supported by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The Study also revealed that, among Upward Bound participants, 35 percent participate for 1 to 12 months, 28 percent participate for 13 to 24 months and 36 percent participate for 25 or more months. The Study found that 40 percent complete the program, that is, participate in Upward Bound through high school graduation. Students who applied for Upward Bound in the summer after completing eighth grade typically spent more time in Upward Bound than other participants (42 months). The Study concluded that, for students who participated in Upward Bound for less than two years, an additional year of Upward Bound participation could raise the postsecondary enrollment rate by as much as nine percentage points. For Upward Bound participants who did not complete the program, the Study found that program completion could raise postsecondary enrollment by as much as 17 percentage points. Therefore, we are proposing in this priority to give students an opportunity to receive a minimum of three years, and potentially four years of Upward Bound services by targeting projects that propose to select all first-time participants from among otherwise eligible students who have completed the 8th grade, but not the 9th grade, in secondary school. To evaluate the outcomes of projects funded under this priority, the Department plans to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the impacts of the Upward Bound Program. Under 34 CFR 75.591, grantees must cooperate in the evaluation. As specified in the proposed priority, any regular Upward Bound grantee may be selected to participate in the evaluation. Each selected grantee would be required to recruit at least twice as many eligible new students in project year 2007-2008 as the grantee plans to serve in its project. Of that larger pool of eligible new students at least 30 percent must meet the definition of “high academic risk for failure.” Grantees selected to participate in the evaluation would be required to refrain from admitting new students into their Upward Bound projects for project year 2007-2008 until the evaluator has completed its data collection and random assignment for those students. Eligible new students will be assigned randomly by the evaluator either to participate in Upward Bound or to serve as part of a control group (not in Upward Bound). We will announce the final priority in a notice in the **Federal Register** . We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable requirements. Note: This notice does *not* solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this proposed priority, we will invite applications through a notice in the **Federal Register** . Priority Proposed Absolute Priority: Upward Bound Program Participant Selection This priority supports Upward Bound Program projects that select first-time participants from otherwise eligible students who have completed the 8th grade but not the 9th grade in secondary school, and that select not less than 30 percent of all first-time participants from students who have “high academic risk for failure.” Otherwise eligible students deemed to have “high academic risk for failure” are those who— 1. Have not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments in reading/language arts for grade eight; 2. Have not achieved at the proficient level on State assessments in math for grade eight; or 3. Have a grade point average of 2.5 or less (on a 4.0 scale) for the most recent school year for which grade point averages are available. To meet this priority, an applicant also must agree to conduct its Upward Bound project in a manner consistent with the evaluation that the Department plans to conduct for the Upward Bound Program. An applicant also must agree, if selected to participate in the evaluation, to— 1. Recruit at least twice as many eligible new students in project year 2007-2008 as the grantee plans to serve in its project. Of that larger pool of eligible new students at least 30 percent must meet the definition of “high academic risk for failure;” 2. Refrain from admitting new students into its Upward Bound project for project year 2007-2008 until the evaluator has completed its data collection and random assignment for those students; and 3. Agree that eligible new students will be assigned randomly by the evaluator either to participate in Upward Bound or to serve as part of a control group (not in Upward Bound). This proposed absolute priority does not apply to the Veterans Upward Bound projects and Upward Bound Math/Science projects. Executive Order 12866 This notice of proposed priority has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed priority are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined are necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed priority, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priority justify the costs. We have also determined that this action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. Intergovernmental Review This Program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. *Applicable Program Regulations:* 34 CFR part 645. 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)245-7374. 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 in the preceding paragraph. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the **Federal Register** a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property. Background This dispute concerned alleged violations of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 *et seq.* ), the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and State rules and regulations by the District of Columbia Department of Human Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration, the State licensing agency (SLA), regarding complainant's bid to operate a cafeteria at the National Imagery Mapping Agency

(NIMA)located at the District of Columbia Navy Yard. A summary of the facts is as follows: Complainant is a licensed vendor in the District of Columbia Department of Human Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration (DCRSA) Randolph-Sheppard vending facility program. In February 2003, DCRSA entered into a subcontracting agreement with the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy

(Navy)and the State of Maryland Business Enterprise Program to operate three cafeterias, including a new cafeteria at NIMA, which was to take effect in March 2003. Subsequently, DCRSA, in accordance with its transfer and promotion policies, solicited bids from interested blind vendors to manage the NIMA cafeteria. The SLA's Promotion and Transfer Committee (Committee) makes decisions about a vendor's eligibility to transfer to another facility. Vendors receive points based on their seniority and performance, and the vendor with the highest number of points is given the first opportunity to transfer to a new facility. In early 2003, the Committee determined that complainant was the second-ranked vendor who had submitted a bid to manage the NIMA cafeteria. However, soon thereafter, the Committee ruled that the highest-ranked vendor was ineligible and that complainant should be selected for the position. Subsequently, complainant alleged that, although she was the next eligible vendor, the SLA refused to allow her to read the terms of the NIMA cafeteria contract or to visit the facility, both of which are standard procedures when a vendor is bidding on a new facility. On May 14, 2003, complainant requested an administrative review from DCRSA concerning her dissatisfaction with not being allowed to transfer to the NIMA cafeteria as the next eligible vendor. The SLA did not act on complainant's administrative review request. On May 16, 2003, complainant requested from DCRSA a State fair hearing on this matter. Complainant alleged that DCRSA also did not act on her request for a State fair hearing. Consequently, in July 2003 complainant filed a request for a Federal arbitration with the Secretary of Education alleging DCRSA's failure to provide a State fair hearing to her concerning her bid on the NIMA cafeteria. In the meantime, the Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration

(RSA)corresponded with the SLA requesting that complainant be given a State fair hearing. By letter dated September 10, 2003, the SLA informed RSA that a pre-hearing was scheduled for September 15, 2003, and a State fair hearing was scheduled for September 18, 2003. On October 28, 2003, a pre-hearing was held by the SLA on complainant's request for a State fair hearing. However, on December 15, 2003, the SLA filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint with the District of Columbia's Office of Fair Hearings. The hearing officer granted the SLA's Motion to Dismiss, thus canceling the State fair hearing that was scheduled for January 23, 2004. The SLA adopted the hearing officer's decision as final agency action. By letter dated March 22, 2004, complainant informed the Commissioner of RSA that the hearing officer had dismissed her complaint and that DCRSA had adopted the hearing officer's decision. Complainant requested review by a Federal arbitration panel of that decision. On April 20, 2004, the Commissioner of RSA issued a letter to complainant and the SLA authorizing the convening of a Federal arbitration panel. A hearing on this matter was held on April 26 and May 12, 2005. Arbitration Panel Decision The issues heard by the panel were—(1) whether DCRSA improperly refused complainant the right to transfer to the NIMA cafeteria, in violation of the Act and implementing regulations, and

(2)whether DCRSA entered into a binding and enforceable agreement with the State of Maryland's Randolph-Sheppard Business Enterprise Program to subcontract the NIMA cafeteria using a teaming partner. After reviewing all of the records and hearing testimony of witnesses, the panel majority ruled that the complainant was entitled to be assigned as the new vendor at the NIMA cafeteria in March 2003. Moreover, the panel majority found no evidence to support the SLA's contention that the highest-ranked vendor's protest to the Committee regarding the Committee's decision to withdraw the vendor's assignment justified the Committee's failure to assign complainant as the next eligible vendor. Concerning the second issue regarding the contractual arrangement between DCRSA and the State of Maryland to operate the NIMA cafeteria, the majority of the panel concluded that, since March 2003, DCRSA had acted in a manner that could be reasonably construed as entering into a subcontracting partnership among the State of Maryland's Business Enterprise Program, the teaming partner, and DCRSA. Specifically, the majority of the panel found that DCRSA had been receiving monthly payments of the vendor's salary from the teaming partner. However, the panel found that DCRSA had not used the money collected from the NIMA cafeteria contract for any services pertaining to the SLA's Randolph-Sheppard program in violation of the Act and regulations. Accordingly, the panel majority ruled that the complainant was the next eligible vendor and should have been transferred to the NIMA cafeteria. Additionally, the panel majority ruled that complainant was entitled to back pay at the rate of $3,750.00 per month retroactive to March 2003 minus her monthly set-aside fees. Thus, the amount that the complainant should receive is $2,925.00 per month from March 2003 including interest at the statutory rate as well as reasonable costs of attorney fees. One panel member dissented. The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(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: June 27, 2006. John H. Hager, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E6-10397 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER05-115-001] Duke Energy Oakland LLC; Notice of Filing June 26, 2006. Take notice that on May 2, 2006, Duke Energy Oakland LLC filed a refund report pursuant to the Commission's January 23, 2006 Order. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov.* Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov* , using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport,ferc.gov* , or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 6, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10332 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL06-52-001] New York Power Authority v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Notice of Filing June 26, 2006. Take notice that on June 20, 2006, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. filed a refund report pursuant to the Commission's Order issued on April 12, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at *http://www.ferc.gov* . Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at *http://www.ferc.gov,* using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,* or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 11, 2006. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10333 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 906-006] Virginia Electric & Power Co.; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests, and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments June 26, 2006. Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection. a. *Type of Application:* New Major License. b. *Project No:* 906-006. c. *Date Filed:* June 12, 2006. d. *Applicant:* Virginia Electric and Power Company, doing business as Dominion Virginia Power. e. *Name of Project:* Cushaw Hydroelectric Project. f. *Location:* On the James River in near Glasgow, Virginia, in Bedford and Amherst Counties, Virginia. The project's impoundment occupies 4.1 acres of United States Forest Service lands. g. *Filed Pursuant to:* Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r). h. *Applicant Contact:* James Thornton, Dominion Virginia Power, 5000 Dominion Boulevard, 1 NE, Glen Allen, VA 23060

(804)273-3257. i. *FERC Contact:* Kristen Murphy,

(202)502-6236 or *kristen.murphy@ferc.gov* . j. *Cooperating Agencies:* We are asking Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. * See,* 94 FERC 61,076 (2001). k. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant. l. *Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status:* August 11, 2006. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.ferc.gov* ) under the “eFiling” link. m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time. n. The Cushaw Project consists of the following features:

(1)A 1,550-foot-long and 27-foot-high reinforced concrete dam extending diagonally across the James River;

(2)a 138-acre reservoir at a surface elevation of 656 feet mean sea level;

(3)an integral powerhouse with the dam containing five generating units with a total installed capacity of 7,500 kilowatts;

(4)a 2.3-kV cable connecting the powerhouse to the Cushaw substation; and

(5)appurtenant facilities. The project is operated in a run-of-river mode, and the average annual electrical generation is approximately 16,971,000 kilowatthours. o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at *http://www.ferc.gov* using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

(202)502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above. You may also register online at *http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp* to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. p. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4. q. *Procedural schedule and final amendments:* The application will be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. The Commission staff proposes to issue one environmental assessment rather than issue a draft and final EA. Comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, prescriptions, and reply comments, if any, will be addressed in an EA. Staff intents to give at least 30 days for entities to comment on the EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA before final action is taken on the license application. *Issue Deficiency or Acceptance Letter:* July 2006. *Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments:* August 2006. *Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis:* October 2006. *Notice of the availability of the EA:* February 2007. *Ready for Commission's decision on the application:* June 2007. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10331 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 June 26, 2006. Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings. *Docket Numbers:* ER91-569-033. *Applicants:* Entergy Services Inc. *Description:* Entergy Services, Inc on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc *et al.* submits a non-material change in status pursuant to requirements of Order 652. *Filed Date:* 6/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0049. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER96-496-015; ER99-14-012; ER99-4463-006. *Applicants:* Northeast Utilities Service Company. *Description:* Northeast Utilities submits certain notifications to the Commission to reflect the acquisition by Hess Corp of the competitive retail businesses operated by Northeast Utilities Enterprise, Inc's subsidiaries. *Filed Date:* 6/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0039. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER97-2153-015; ER02-556-007; ER00-2181-003. *Applicants:* Amerada Hess Corporation; Select Energy New York, Inc.; Hess Energy, Inc. *Description:* Select Energy New York, Inc *et al.* submits a notice of non-material change in status. *Filed Date:* 6/20/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0045. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1089-003. *Applicants:* Wisconsin Public Service Corporation. *Description:* Wisconsin Public Service Corp submits a settlement payment report in compliance with the Commission's 6/2/06 order. *Filed Date:* 6/19/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060619-5023. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 10, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER05-1508-002. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. submits its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with Power Partners Midwest, LLC and Interstate Power and Light Company. *Filed Date:* 6/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0056. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-255-003. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. submits a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with FirstEnergy Generation Corp and American Transmission System, Inc. *Filed Date:* 6/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0057. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-714-001. *Applicants:* Midwest Independent Transmission System. *Description:* Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submits its Large Generator Interconnection Agreement with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company and American Transmission System, Inc. *Filed Date:* 6/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0040. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-836-001. *Applicants:* Pacific Gas & Electric Company. *Description:* Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits a supplement to its 4/4/06 filing of Supplemental Balancing Account Revisions. *Filed Date:* 6/22/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0085. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 13, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1046-002. *Applicants:* Western Kentucky Energy Corp.; LG&E Energy Marketing Inc.; Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities Company. *Description:* LG&E Energy Marketing, Inc *et al.* submit updated information to inform FERC of certain recent developments in a proceeding pending before the Kentucky Public Service Commission etc. *Filed Date:* 6/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0051. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1055-001. *Applicants:* Newmont Nevada Energy Investment, LLC. *Description:* Newmont Nevada Energy Investment LLC submits revised tariff sheets to its Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1. *Filed Date:* 6/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0047. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1098-001. *Applicants:* JJR Power LLC. *Description:* JJR Power LLC submits an amended Petition of Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waiver and Blanket Authority. *Filed Date:* 6/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0041. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1163-000. *Applicants:* American Electric Power Service Corporation. *Description:* The American Electric Power Service Corp, on behalf of Ohio Power Co et al submits an interconnection agreement with Duke Energy. *Filed Date:* 6/21/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0042. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 12, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1164-000. *Applicants:* New York State Electric & Gas Corporation. *Description:* New York State Electric & Gas Corp submits a supplement to Rate Schedule 200—Facilities Agreement with New York Power Authority. *Filed Date:* 6/19/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0048. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 10, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1165-000. *Applicants:* Southern Company Services, Inc. *Description:* Southern Company Services, Inc on behalf Alabama Power Co et al submits Revision 3 to the Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service for Tennessee Valley Authority. *Filed Date:* 6/22/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060623-0052. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 13, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1166-000. *Applicants:* Liberty Power Nevada LLC. *Description:* Liberty Power Nevada, LLC submits its petition for acceptance of initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1), waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 6/22/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0163. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1167-000. *Applicants:* Liberty Power New Hampshire LLC. *Description:* Liberty Power New Hampshire, LLC submits a petition for acceptance of its initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 1), waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 6/22/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0161. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1168-000. *Applicants:* Liberty Power Pennsylvania LLC. *Description:* Liberty Power Pennsylvania, LLC submits a petition of its initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1), waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 6/22/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0162. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1169-000. *Applicants:* Moses Lake Generating LLC. *Description:* Moses Lake Generating, LLC submits a notice of cancellation of its market-based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1. *Filed Date:* 6/23/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0149. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 14, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1170-000. *Applicants:* Liberty Power Ohio LLC. *Description:* Liberty Power Ohio, LLC submits a petition for acceptance of its initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1) waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 6/22/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0150. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 3, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1171-000. *Applicants:* Southern California Edison Company. *Description:* Southern California Edison Co submits an Interconnection Facilities Study Agreement with the Nevada Hydro Co Inc. *Filed Date:* 6/23/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0158. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 14, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1172-000. *Applicants:* Liberty Power California LLP. *Description:* Liberty Power California, LLP submits a petition for acceptance of its initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1), waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 6/23/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0160. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1173-000. *Applicants:* Liberty Power Connecticut LLP. *Description:* Liberty Power Connecticut, LLP submits a petition for acceptance of its initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Tariff 1), waivers and blanket authority. *Filed Date:* 6/23/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0159. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 5, 2006. *Docket Numbers:* ER06-1174-000. *Applicants:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc. *Description:* New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits revised tariff to reinstate inadvertently delete language needed to determine sanctions for failure to meet ICAP Bidding requirements. *Filed Date:* 6/23/2006. *Accession Number:* 20060626-0146. *Comment Date:* 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 14, 2006. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at *http://www.ferc.gov* . To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov* . or call

(866)208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call

(202)502-8659. Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10328 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6676-8] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements

(EISs)was published in FR dated April 7, 2006 (71 FR 17845). Draft EISs *EIS No. 20050540, ERP No. D-FAA-C51029-00,* New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Area Airspace Redesign Project, To Increase the Efficiency and Reliability of the Airspace Structure and Air Traffic Control System, NY, NJ and PA. *Summary:* EPA expressed environmental concern about cumulative impacts. EPA also requested information on outreach to environmental justice communities impacted by noise and mitigation/minimization of noise exposure to those communities. Rating EC2. *EIS No. 20060154, ERP No. D-NPS-E65081-FL,* Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, General Management Plan, Implementation, City of St. Augustine, St. Johns County, FL. *Summary:* EPA does not object to the proposed action. Rating LO. *EIS No. 20060170, ERP No. D-COE-K39097-AZ,* Rio Salado Oeste Project, Ecosystem Restoration along the Salt River, City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, AZ. *Summary:* EPA supports the restoration project and requested more information regarding adaptive management plans. Rating LO. *EIS No. 20060050, ERP No. DR-COE-E34031-FL,* Central and Southern Florida Project, Revised Draft Integrated Project Implementation Report, Comprehensive Restoration Plan, Implementation, Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs, Palm Beach County, FL. *Summary:* While EPA fully supports the construction and operation of the proposed project, it expressed environmental concerns about potential water quality impacts, and requested that additional water quality information be included in the Final EIS. Rating EC1. Final EISs *EIS No. 20060156, ERP No. F-COE-J39034-MT,* Upper Columbia Alternative Flood Control and Fish Operations, Implementation, Libby and Hungry Horse Dams, Columbia River Basin, MT. *Summary:* EPA supports the basic goal of operating Libby and Hungry Horse Dams to simulate a more natural hydro graph for aquatic ecosystem benefits. EPA also supports the Flow Implementation Protocol being developed by the Corps and other stakeholders. However, EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential for the new Libby Dam to result in increased total dissolved gas levels in the Kootenai River that would exceed the state of Montana's Water Quality Standards. *EIS No. 20060157, ERP No. F-IBR-K39076-00,* Navajo Reservoir Operations, Proposed Operational Changes to Navajo Dam and Reservoir, Endangered Species Act (ESA), Related Flow Recommendations, Navajo Unit-San Juan River, NM, CO and UT. *Summary:* EPA supports the modification of operation of Navajo Dam to meet flow recommendations for the sucker and pikeminnow, and requested additional commitments to mitigation and monitoring for water quality impacts. *EIS No. 20060196, ERP No. F-COE-E34031-FL,* South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Proposes Construction and Operation Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir A-1 Project, Lake Okeechobee, Palm Beach County, FL. *Summary:* EPA continues to support this element of the original selected alternative as having reasonable and feasible objectives while providing sufficient environmental restoration benefits; therefore, EPA does not object to the proposed action. *EIS No. 20060225, ERP No. F-BLM-K65293-NV,* Sheep Complex, Big Springs and Owyhee Grazing Allotments Sensitive Bird Species Project, Determine Impacts of Livestock Grazing, Elko County, NV. *Summary:* Modifications to the selected alternative, such as using phased grazing levels and the implementation of monitoring and adaptive management measures that rely on ecosystem goals have addressed EPA's concerns; therefore, EPA does not object to the proposed action. Dated: June 28, 2006. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6-10395 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-6676-7] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability *Responsible Agency:* Office of Federal Activities, General Information

(202)564-7167 or *http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/* Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 6/19/2006 through 6/23/2006 pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. *EIS No. 20060260, Final EIS, BLM, AK,* East Alaska Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP), Provide a Single Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Implementation, Glennallen Field Office District, AK, Wait Period Ends: 7/31/2006. Contact: Bruce Rogers 907-822-3217. *EIS No. 20060261, Final EIS, NPS, UT,* Burr Trail Modification Project, Proposed Road Modification within Capitol Reef National Park, Garfield County, UT, Wait Period Ends: July 31, 2006, Contact: Chris Turk 303-969-2832. *EIS No. 20060262, Draft EIS, SFW, CA,* San Joaquin Valley Operations and Maintenance Program Habitat Conservation Plan, Application for Incidental Take Permits, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, Kings, Kern Mariposa, Madera and Tulare Counties, CA, Comment Period Ends: 9/28/2006, Contact: Lori Rinek 916-414-6600. *EIS No. 20060263, Final EIS, BIA, MI,* Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians (the Tribe), Proposes Fee-to-Trust Transfer and Casino Project, Calhoun County, MI, Wait Period Ends: 7/31/2006, Contact: Terrance Virden 612-725-4510. *EIS No. 20060264, Draft EIS, AFS, WY,* Lower Valley Energy

(LVE)Natural Gas Pipeline Project, Construction and Operation of a Pressurized Natural Gas Pipeline, Special-Use-Authorization, Big Piney and Jackson Ranger Districts, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Sublette and Teton Counties, WY, Comment Period Ends: 8/14/2006, Contact: Teresa Trulock 307-276-3375. *EIS No. 20060265, Draft EIS, EPA and BIA, ND,* Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara

(MHA)Nation's Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project, Construct and Operate a New 15,000 Barrel Per Day Clean Fuels Refinery and Grow Hay for Buffalo, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, Ward County, ND, Comment Period Ends: 8/29/2006, Contact: Dana Allen 303-312-6870. US EPA and U.S. DOI's BIA are Co-Lead Agencies for the above project. Agencies contact are: Diane-Mann-Klager

(BIA)605-226-7621 and Monica Morales

(EPA)303-312-6936. *EIS No. 20060266, Draft EIS, DOT, TX,* North Corridor Fixed Gudeway Project, Propose Transit Improvements from University of Houston (UH)—Downtown Station to Northline Mall, Harris County, TX, Comment Period Ends: 8/14/2006, Contact: John Sweek 817-978-0550. *EIS No. 20060267, Final EIS, BLM, CA,* Ukiah Resource Management Plan Implementation, Several Counties, CA, Wait Period Ends: 8/14/2006, Contact: Eli Ilano 916-978-4427. *EIS No. 20060268, Draft EIS, FHW, DC,* 11th Street Bridges Project, Anacostia Freeway I-295/DC 295, to the Southeast/Southwest Freeway (I-695) Improvements, Funding, NPDES Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Washington, DC, Comment Period Ends: 8/28/2006, Contact: Michael Hicks 202-219-3513. *EIS No. 20060269, Draft Supplemental, COE, MD,* Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility, New Information, New Source of Dike Building Material from the Seagirt Dredging Project within the Patapsco River, Funding, Baltimore, MD, Comment Period Ends: 8/14/2006, Contact: Jon Romeo 410-962-6079. *EIS No. 20060270, Second Draft Supplemental, COE, FL,* Cope Sable Seaside Sparrow Protection, Interim Operation Plan (IOP), Additional Information Alternative 7, Providing Additional Flood Control Capacity, Implementation, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, FL, Comment Period Ends: 8/14/2006, Contact: Dr. Jon Moulding 904-232-2286. *EIS No. 20060271, Draft EIS, CGD, 00,* PROGRAMMATIC—Implementation of the U.S. Coast Guard Nationwide Automatic Identification System Project, Providing Vessel Identification, Tracking and Information Exchange Capabilities to Support National Maritime Interests, Comment Period Ends: 8/14/2006, Contact: Anita Allen 202-475-3292. *EIS No. 20060272, Draft EIS, COE, NC,* West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach) Shore Protection Project, Storm Damages and Beach Erosion Reduction, Funding, Pender County, NC, Comment Period Ends: 8/14/2006, Contact: Jenny Owens 910-251-4757. *EIS No. 20060273, Draft EIS, RUS, MT,* Highwood Generating Station, 250-megawatt Coal Fired Power Plant and 6MW of Wind Generation at a Site near Great Falls, Construction and Operation, Licenses Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10 Permit, Cascade County, MT, Comment Period Ends: 8/15/2006, Contact: Richard Fristik 202-720-5093. Amended Notices *EIS No. 20060184, Draft EIS, COE, MD,* Masonville Dredge Material Containment Facility (DMCF), Construction from Baltimore Harbor Channel north of Point-Rock Point Line, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Baltimore, MD, Comment Period Ends: 8/14/2006, Contact: Jon Romeo 410-962-6079. Revision to FR Published on 5/19/2006: Comment Period extended from 7/7/2006 to 8/14/2006. *EIS No. 20060218, Draft EIS, FHW, NY,* Williamsville Toll Barrier Improvement Project, Improvements from New York Thruway, Interstate 90 between Interchange 48A and 50, Funding, Erie and Genesee Counties, NY, Comment Period Ends: August 21, 2006, Contact: Amy Jackson-Grove 518-431-4125. Revision to FR Notice Published 6/2/2006: Correction to Comment Period from 7/24/2006 to 8/21/2006. *EIS No. 20060220, Draft EIS, BLM, ID,* Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Ada, Canyon, Elmore, Owyhee Counties, ID, Comment Period Ends: 8/31/2006, Contact: Mike O'Donnell 208-384-3315. Revision to FR Notice Published 6/2/2006: Extending Comment Period from 8/17/2006 to 8/31/2006. Dated: June 28, 2006. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6-10394 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. SUMMARY: Background On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the OMB 83-Is and supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following: a. Whether the proposed collections of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility; b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by *Reg P,* by any of the following methods: • *Agency Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.* • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.* Include docket number in the subject line of the message. • *FAX:* 202/452-3819 or 202/452-3102. • *Mail:* Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at *http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm* as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets, NW.) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB 83-I), supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below. Michelle Long, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD)users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Proposal To Approve Under OMB Delegated Authority the Extension for Three Years, Without Revision, of the Following Collection of Information *Report title:* Reporting and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation P. *Agency form number:* Reg P. *OMB control number:* 7100-0294. *Frequency:* Reporting, on-occasion; and disclosure, annually. *Reporters:* State member banks, subsidiaries of state member banks, bank holding companies and it's subsidiaries or affiliates, branches and agencies of foreign banks, commercial lending companies owned or controlled by foreign banks, corporations operating under section 25 or 25A of the Federal Reserve Act, and customers of these financial institutions. *Estimated annual number of institution respondents:* Initial notice, 1,311; annual notice and change in terms, 6,692; opt-out notice, 1,197. *Estimated average time per response per institution:* Initial notice, 80 hours; annual notice and change in terms, 8 hours; opt-out notice, 8 hours. *Estimated subtotal annual burden hours for institutions:* 167,992 hours. *Estimated annual number of consumer respondents:* 402,675. *Estimated average time per consumer response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated subtotal annual burden hours for consumers:* 201,338 hours. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 369,330 hours. *General description of report:* This information collection is mandatory (12 U.S.C. 248) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, Sec. 504). Since the Federal Reserve does not collect any information, no issue of confidentiality normally arises. *Abstract:* The information collection pursuant to Regulation P is triggered by the establishment of a relationship between a customer and a financial institution. The regulation ensures that financial institutions provide customers notice of the privacy policies and practices of financial institutions and a means to prevent the disclosure of nonpublic personal information, in certain circumstances. Where applicable, financial institutions are required to provide an initial notice and an annual notice of their privacy policies and practices, opt-out notices, and revised notices containing changes in policies and procedures. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 27, 2006. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. E6-10339 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Modified OGE Form 201 Ethics Act Access Form AGENCY: Office of Government Ethics (OGE). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Office of Government Ethics is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)a proposed modified OGE Form 201 for review and three-year approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OGE Form 201 is used by persons for requesting access to executive branch public financial disclosure reports and other covered records. OGE is proposing three modifications to the form: clarifying the prohibited uses statement; updating the Privacy Act Statement summary; and updating the edition date. The modified form, once approved, will replace the existing one. DATES: Comments by the agencies and the public on this proposal are invited and should be received by August 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Rachel F. Potter, Desk Officer for OGE, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-6974. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul D. Ledvina, Records Officer, Information Resources Management Division, Office of Government Ethics; Telephone: 202-482-9300; TDD: 202-482-9293; fax: 202-482-9237. A copy of the proposed modified OGE Form 201 may be obtained, without charge, by contacting Mr. Ledvina. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Government Ethics is submitting to OMB a proposed modified OGE Form 201 “Request to Inspect or Receive Copies of SF 278 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports or Other Covered Records” for review and three-year approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Once finally approved by OMB and adopted by OGE, the modified version of this OGE form will replace the existing version. The Office of Government Ethics, which is the supervising ethics office for the executive branch of the Federal Government under section 109(18)(D) of the Ethics in Government Act (the Ethics Act), 5 U.S.C. appendix, § 109(18)(D), has developed the OGE Form 201 (OMB control # 3209-0002) for branchwide use. The form collects information from, and provides certain information to, persons who seek access to SF 278 reports and other covered records. The form reflects the requirements of the Ethics Act and OGE's implementing regulations that must be met by a person before access can be granted. These requirements relate to information about the identity of the requester, as well as any other person on whose behalf a record is sought, and a notification of prohibited uses of SF 278 reports. See section 105(b) and

(c)of the Ethics Act, 5 U.S.C. app., § 105(b) and (c), and 5 CFR 2634.603(c) and

(f)of OGE's executive branchwide regulations thereunder. Executive branch departments and agencies are encouraged to utilize the OGE Form 201, but they can, if they so choose, continue to use or develop their own forms as long as they contain all the required information and meet all the legal requirements therefor. Proposed Modifications First, OGE proposes rewording the prohibited uses statement on the form in order to clarify that the submitter's signature denotes awareness of the prohibited uses of SF 278 reports. In addition, OGE proposes moving the statement on the form so that it precedes the signature and date block. Second, OGE proposes modifying the Privacy Act Statement in part II.A. of the OGE Form 201. In 2003, OGE updated the OGE/GOVT-1 executive branchwide system of records notice (covering Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Reports and Other Name-Retrieved Ethics Program Records, in which completed OGE Form 201s are maintained). See 68 FR 3097-3109, at 3100 (January 22, 2003), as corrected at 68 FR 24744 (May 8, 2003). That revised system notice included three additional routine uses for records in the system. OGE has already added summaries of them to the OGE Form 201 Privacy Act Statement (see the listed additional disclosures

(uses)#s 7-9). However, the summary of the sixth routine use listed on the OGE Form 201 still needs to be updated to reflect the 2003 revision of the underlying routine use, which OGE's second proposed modification to the form would do. Third, OGE proposes updating the edition date on pages one and two of the OGE Form 201. Reporting Burden OGE estimates that an average of 365 OGE Form 201s will be filed throughout the executive branch each year by members of the public (primarily by news media, public interest groups and private citizens) for the next three years. This figure is based on the number of OGE Form 201s filed by members of the public at OGE (221 for 2003, 143 for 2004, and 206 for 2005) and at departments and agencies from the rest of the executive branch (244 for 2003, 140 for 2004, and 140 for 2005), as reported on OGE's annual agency ethics program questionnaires. The branchwide three-year total amounts to 1,094 forms. OGE has divided that number by three to give the projected annual average of 365 forms for the next three years (2006-2008). The estimated average amount of time to complete the form, including review of the instructions, remains at ten minutes. Thus, the estimated annual public burden for the OGE Form 201 (throughout the executive branch) is 61 hours (365 forms x 10 minutes per form—number rounded up). This is an increase from the current burden of 37 hours. The current burden accounts for public filers whose OGE Form 201s were filed each year only with OGE. The proposed estimate of burden hours includes OGE Form 201s or equivalent access forms filed by members of the public with departments and agencies throughout the executive branch (including OGE). The annual estimates above differ from those reported in the first round FR notice (374 filers; 63 burden hours), because 2005 branchwide figures are now available in addition to those for 2003 and 2004. Web Site Distribution of Blank Forms The OGE Form 201 as modified will continue to be made available free-of-charge as a downloadable and fillable Portable Document Format

(PDF)file to the public as well as departments and agencies on OGE's Internet Web site at *http://www.usoge.gov.* OGE will also continue to permit departments and agencies to use the copy of the OGE Form 201, once modified, as available on OGE's Web site or to develop and utilize their own electronic versions of the modified OGE form, as long as they precisely duplicate the original to the extent possible. Agencies can also develop their own access forms, provided all the information required by the Ethics Act and OGE regulations is placed on such forms, along with the appropriate Privacy Act and paperwork notices with any attendant clearances being obtained by the agencies therefor. For now, OGE itself accepts filing of a completed OGE Form 201 by mail, FAX, or in person, but does not permit E-mail or Internet online transmission. Similarly, requested copies of reports or other covered records are supplied by OGE as hard (paper) copies. Consideration of Comments On November 2, 2005, OGE published its first round notice of the forthcoming request for paperwork clearance for the proposed modified OGE Form 201. See 70 FR 66437-66438, as corrected at 70 FR 67538 (November 7, 2005). The Office of Government Ethics did not receive any comments in response to that notice, though three agencies requested a copy of the proposed revised form. In this second notice, public comment is again invited on the proposed modified OGE Form 201 as set forth in this notice, including specifically views on: The need for and practical utility of this proposed modified collection of information; the accuracy of OGE's burden estimate; the enhancement of quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; and the minimization of burden (including the use of information technology). The Office of Government Ethics, in consultation with OMB, will consider all comments received, which will become a matter of public record. Approved: June 26, 2006. Robert I. Cusick, Director, Office of Government Ethics. [FR Doc. E6-10345 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS)is hereby giving notice that the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports will hold a meeting. This meeting is open to the public. A description of the Council's functions is included also with this notice. *Date and Time:* July 26, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Johnson, Executive Director, President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 738H, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201,

(202)690-5187. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports (PCPFS) was established originally by Executive Order 10673, dated July 16, 1956. PCPFS was established by President Eisenhower after published reports indicated that American boys and girls were unfit compared to the children of Western Europe. The Council has undergone two name changes and several reorganizations since its inception. Authorization to continue Council operations has been given at appropriate intervals by subsequent Executive Orders. Authority to continue Council operations was most recently directed by Executive Order 13385, dated September 29, 2005. Presently, the PCPFS serves as a program office that is located organizationally in the Office of Public Health and Science within the Office of the Secretary in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. On June 6, 2002, President Bush signed Executive Order 13256 to reestablish the PCPFS. Executive Order 13256 was established to expand the focus of the Council. This directive instructed the Secretary to develop and coordinate a national program to enhance physical activity and sports participation. The Council currently operates under the stipulations of the new directive. The primary functions of the Council include to:

(1)Advise the President, through the Secretary, on the progress made in carrying out the provisions of the enacted directive and recommend actions to accelerate progress;

(2)advise the Secretary on ways and means to enhance opportunities for participation in physical fitness and sports, and, where possible, to promote and assist in the facilitation and/or implementation of such measures;

(3)to advise the Secretary regarding opportunities to extend and improve physical activity/fitness and sports programs and services at the national, state and local levels; and

(4)to monitor the need for the enhancement of programs and educational and promotional materials sponsored, overseen, or disseminated by the Council, and advise the Secretary, as necessary, concerning such needs. The PCPFS holds at a minimum, one meeting in the calendar year to

(1)assess ongoing Council activities and

(2)discuss and plan future projects and programs. Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals must provide a photo ID for entry into the meeting. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person. Dated: June 27, 2006. Melissa Johnson, Executive Director, President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. [FR Doc. E6-10347 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-35-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of Public Health and Science; Privacy Act of 1974; New System of Records AGENCY: Medical Reserve Corps

(MRC)Program, Office of Force Readiness and Deployment (OFRD), Office of the Surgeon General (OSG), Office of Public Health and Science (OPHS), Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Notification of new system of records. SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act, the Office of Public Health and Science

(OPHS)is publishing notice of a proposal to add a new system of records, 09-90-0160, “Medical Reserve Corps Unit Information, HHS/OPHS/OSG.” DATES: OPHS invites interested parties to submit comments on the proposed internal and routine uses on or before August 2, 2006. As of the date of publication of this Notice, OPHS has sent a Report of New System of Records to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The New System of Records will be effective 40 days from the date submitted to OMB unless OPHS receives comments that would result in a contrary determination. ADDRESSES: Please address comments to Privacy Act Officer, 200 Independence Ave., SW., Room 645F, Washington, DC 20201.

(202)690-7453. Comments received will be available for inspection at this same address from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Medical Reserve Corps Program, Office of the Surgeon General, Department of Health and Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18C-14, Rockville, MD 20857.

(301)443-4951. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Surgeon General is developing a new system of records, 09-90-0160, “Medical Reserve Corps Unit Information, HHS/OPHS/OSG,” that will collect and maintain information about MRC units registered with the OSG/MRC program office. Information gathered will include unit demographics, contact information (regular and emergency), volunteer numbers, activity updates and samples of best practices/lessons learned. MRC unit leaders are asked to update this information at least quarterly. In addition, information pertaining to MRC members who are able and willing to be utilized outside their local jurisdiction will be collected (this subset of the MRC will be known as the “PHS Auxiliary”). Appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the integrity and privacy of the system. Access to records is limited to MRC program staff, and contractors, consultants or grantees who have been engaged by the Department to assist with the MRC program and who need access to the records in order to perform the activity. All computer equipment and files are stored in areas where fire and life safety codes are strictly enforced, and computer networks and web-accessible systems are password protected. It is anticipated that disclosure may be made to U.S. Government employees, as well as to contractors, consultants or grantees, who have been engaged by the Department to assist with the MRC program. Routine uses of the collected data will allow for the successful coordination of the program, and adequate reporting to applicable agencies/organizations. This system of records is required to comply with the implementation directives of the Act, Public Law 108-20. The following notice is written in the present tense, rather than in the future tense, in order to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of public funds to republish the notice after the system becomes effective. Dated: June 23, 2006. John O. Agwunobi, ADM, USPHS, Assistant Secretary for Health. [FR Doc. E6-10346 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30 Day-06-0278) Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Act Review The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at

(404)639-5960 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov.* Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC or by fax to

(202)395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice. Proposed Project National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey [OMB No. 0920-0278]—Revision—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background and Brief Description The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) has been conducted annually since 1992. The purpose of the NHAMCS is to meet the needs and demands for statistical information about the provision of ambulatory medical care services in the United States. Ambulatory services are rendered in a wide variety of settings, including physicians' offices and hospital outpatient and emergency departments. The target universe of the NHAMCS is in-person visits made to outpatient departments

(OPDs)and emergency departments

(EDs)of non-Federal, short-stay hospitals (hospitals with an average length of stay of less than 30 days) or those whose specialty is general (medical or surgical) or children's general. The NHAMCS was initiated to complement the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS, OMB No. 0920-0234) which provides similar data concerning patient visits to physicians' offices. The NAMCS and NHAMCS are the principal sources of data on approximately 90 percent of ambulatory care provided in the United States. The NHAMCS provides a range of baseline data on the characteristics of the users and providers of ambulatory medical care. Data collected include patients' demographic characteristics, reason(s) for visit, physicians' diagnosis(es), diagnostic services, medications, and disposition. These data, together with trend data, may be used to monitor the effects of change in the health care system, for the planning of health services, improving medical education, determining health care work force needs, and assessing the health status of the population. In addition, a Cervical Cancer Screening Supplement

(CCSS)will be added to collect information on cervical cancer screening practices from hospital OPD clinics. It will allow the CDC/National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) to evaluate cervical cancer screening methods and the use of human papilloma virus

(HPV)tests. Users of NHAMCS data include, but are not limited to, congressional offices, Federal agencies, state and local governments, schools of public health, colleges and universities, private industry, nonprofit foundations, professional associations, clinicians, researchers, administrators, and health planners. There are no costs to the respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 7,313. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Hospital Chief Medical Officer Hospital Induction form (NHAMCS—101) Ineligile 50 1 15/60 Eligible 420 1 1 Ancillary Service Executive Ambulatory Unit Induction form

(ED)(NHAMCS—101/U) 400 1 1 Ancillary Service Executive Ambulatory Unit Induction form

(OPD)(NHAMCS—101/U) 250 4 1 Physician/Registered Nurse/Medical Record Clerk ED Patient Record form (NHAMCS—100 ED) 220 100 6/60 Medical Record Clerk Pulling and re-filing ED Patient Record 180 100 1/60 Physician/Registered Nurse/Medical Record Clerk OPD Patient Record form (NHAMCS—100 OPD) 125 200 6/60 Medical Record Clerk Pulling and re-filing OPD Patient Record 125 200 1/60 Physician Cervical Cancer Screening Supplement

(CCSS)(NHAMCS form 906) 200 1 15/60 Physician Assistant/Nurse Practitioner/Nurse Midwife Cervical Cancer Screening Supplement

(CCSS)(NHAMCS form 906) 50 1 15/60 Dated: June 22, 2006. Joan F. Karr, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-10358 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60 Day-06-06BK] Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-5960 and send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30333 or send an e-mail to *omb@cdc.gov.* Comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

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

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice. Proposed Project Assessment of Occupational Exposure Management—New—Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP), National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC). Background and Brief Description The Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP), (CDC), defines its primary mission as the protection of patients and healthcare personnel through the promotion of safety, quality, and value in the healthcare delivery system. One priority is preventing transmission of blood borne pathogens to healthcare personnel during delivery of medical care. The purpose of this project is to conduct an assessment of personnel safety in healthcare settings in the United States, specifically management of occupational blood exposures as part of a larger plan to prevent the transmission of bloodborne pathogens. While the United States Public Health Service protocols on management of occupational exposure are widely distributed, the awareness and implementation of these protocols by providers of health services are unknown. CDC has undertaken the task of conducting a survey assessing occupational exposure management programs that will address safety for healthcare personnel. The survey is intended to assess surveillance reporting, laboratory diagnostic capacity, general policies on managing exposures, staffing health consultants, staff training, and provision of counseling for exposed workers. The results of the survey will be used to ensure that surveillance activities, reporting procedures for occupational exposures, on-site laboratory services, and occupational exposure management policies are consistent with national guidelines. Results will also be used to provide facilities with up-to-date information on infection control. Respondents from each of the four healthcare settings will be asked to complete the survey. The anticipated number of respondents is shown below. Only one response is requested from each respondent. The estimated average length of time necessary to complete a survey is 20 minutes. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Respondent Number of respondents Number of responses per respondent Average burden per response (in hours) Total burden (hours) Acute-Care Facilities 865 1 20/60 288 Ambulatory Surgery Centers 353 1 20/60 118 Long-term Care Facilities 3634 1 20/60 1211 Dialysis Centers 468 1 20/60 156 Total 5320 1 1773 Dated: June 26, 2006. Joan F. Karr, Acting Reports Clearance Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-10359 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panels (SEP): Increasing Adolescent Immunization Coverage in School-Based Health Centers, Request for Applications

(RFA)IP 06-003, and Feasibility of Delivering New Adolescent Vaccines in Complementary Health Care Settings, RFA IP 06-004 In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC)announces the following meeting: *Name:* Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Increasing Adolescent Immunization Coverage in School-Based Health Centers, RFA IP 06-003, and Feasibility of Delivering New Adolescent Vaccines in Complementary Health Care Settings, RFA IP 06-004. *Time and Date:* 1 p.m.-4 p.m., July 7, 2006 (Closed). *Place:* Teleconference. *Status:* The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. *Matters to be Discussed:* “Increasing Adolescent Immunization Coverage in School-Based Health Centers,” RFA IP 06-003, and “Feasibility of Delivering New Adolescent Vaccines in Complementary Health Care Settings,” RFA IP 06-004. Due to programmatic matters, this **Federal Register** Notice is being published on less than 15 calendar days notice to the public (41 CFR 102-3.150(b)). *For Further Information Contact:* Felix Rogers, M.P.H., PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Research, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone 404-639-6101. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign **Federal Register** notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: June 22, 2006. Alvin Hall, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. 06-5972 Filed 6-30-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 20

Traces to 20 documents

U.S. Code