Notices. Notice and request for comments

12,075 words·~55 min read·/register/2006/08/03/06-6653·

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

BILLING CODE 4310-MN-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians Notice of Proposed Information Collection AGENCY: Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Department of the Interior, announces the proposed extension of a public information collection required by The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, “Trust Funds for Tribes and Individual Indians, 25 CFR part 115,” OMB Control No. 1035-0004, and that it is seeking comments on its provisions.

After public review, the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians will submit the information collection to Office of Management and Budget for review and approval. DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Information Collection Budget Officer, Sue Ellen Sloca, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., MS 120 SIB, Washington, DC 20240.

Individuals providing comments should reference OMB Control Number 1035-0004, “Trust Funds for Tribes and Individual Indians, 25 CFR part 115,” OMB Control No. 1035-0004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instrument, please write to the above address, or call Sue Ellen Sloca, on 202-208-6045, or e-mail her on *sue_ellen_sloca@nbc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)). This notice identifies an information collection activity that the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians will submit to OMB for extension or re-approval. Public Law 103-412, The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, makes provision for the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, within the Office of the Secretary, to administer trust funds on behalf of individual Indians and of Indian tribes. This information collection, which covers three different forms, and six different non-form occasions on which the Office of the Special Trustee is required by law to collect information from individual Indians and Indian Tribes, allows the Office of the Special Trustee to collect the information needed to establish and maintain trust accounts for individual Indians and Indian tribes. If this information were not collected, the Office of the Special Trustee would not be able to comply with The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, and the Office of the Special Trustee would not be able to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities to individual Indians and Indian tribes with respect to trust funds. II. Data

(1)*Title:* Trust Funds for Tribes and Individual Indians, 25 CFR part 115. *OMB Control Number:* 1035-0004. *Current Expiration Date:* 10/31/2006. *Type of Review: Information Collection:* Renewal. *Affected Entities:* State, local, or tribal government. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 285,000. *Frequency of response:* As needed.

(2)Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden. *Estimated number of responses annually:* 677,675. *Total annual reporting:* 472,214.

(3)*Description of the need and use of the information:* The statutorily-required information is needed to provide the Office of the Special Trustee with a vehicle to collect the information needed to establish and maintain trust accounts for individual Indians and Indian tribes. III. Request for Comments *The Department of the Interior invites comments on:*

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

(b)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection and 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 the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. Dated: July 27, 2006. Ross O. Swimmer, Special Trustee for American Indians. [FR Doc. E6-12490 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-2W-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians Notice of Proposed Information Collection AGENCY: Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, DOI. ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments. SUMMARY: The proposal for the collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of the proposed information collection request may be obtained by contacting the Office of the Special Trustee at the phone number listed below in the For Further Information Contact section. Comments and suggestions on this proposal should be made directly to the Office of Management and Budget. A copy of the comments and suggestions should also be sent to the Office of the Special Trustee, at the address listed below. DATES: OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection, but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by September 5, 2006, in order to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Send your written comments to Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention, Department of the Interior Desk Officer, by fax to 202-395-6566, or by e-mail to *oira_docket@omb.eop.gov.* Send a copy of your written comments to Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Office of External Affairs, Attn: Carrie Moore, Department of the Interior, MS 5140 MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240. Individuals providing comments should reference OMB control number 1035-0003, “Application to Withdraw Tribal Funds from Trust Status, 25 CFR 1200.” FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request a copy of the information collection request (“Application to Withdraw Tribal Funds from Trust Status, 25 CFR 1200,” OMB control number 1035-0003), and explanatory information, contact Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians, Office of External Affairs, Attn: Carrie Moore, Department of the Interior, MS 5140 MIB, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240, or phone 202-208-4866. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)). This notice identifies an information collection activity that the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians will submit to OMB for extension or re-approval. Public Law 103-412, The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, allows Indian tribes on a voluntary basis to take their funds out of trust status within the Department of the Interior (and the Federal Government) in order to manage such funds on their own. 25 CFR Part 1200, Subpart B, Section 1200.13, “How does a tribe apply to withdraw funds?” describes the requirements for application for withdrawal. The Act covers all tribal trust funds including judgment funds as well as some settlement funds, but excludes funds held in Individual Indian Money accounts. Both the Act and the regulation state that upon withdrawal of the funds, the Department of the Interior (and the Federal Government) have no further liability for such funds. Accompanying their application for withdrawal of trust funds, tribes are required to submit a Management Plan for managing the funds being withdrawn, to protect the funds once they are out of trust status. This information collection allows the Office of the Special Trustee to collect the tribes' applications for withdrawal of funds held in trust by the Department of the Interior. If this information were not collected, the Office of the Special Trustee would not be able to comply with The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, and tribes would not be able to withdraw funds held for them in trust by the Department of the Interior. II. Data

(1)*Title:* Application to Withdraw Tribal Funds from Trust Status, 25 CFR Part 1200. *OMB Control Number:* 1035-0003. *Current Expiration Date:* 08/31/2006. *Type of Review: Information Collection:* Renewal. *Affected Entities:* State, local, or tribal government. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 4. *Frequency of response:* Once per respondent.

(2)*Annual reporting and recordkeeping burden.* *Total annual reporting per respondent:* 400 hours. *Total annual reporting:* 1600 hours.

(3)*Description of the need and use of the information:* The statutorily-required information is needed to provide a vehicle for tribes to withdraw funds from accounts held in trust for them by the United States Government. III. Request for Comments The Department of the Interior invites comments on:

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

(b)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection and 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 the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number. Dated: July 25, 2006. Carrie Moore, Director, Office of External Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. [FR Doc. E6-12491 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-2W-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Renewal of Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries This notice is published in accordance with the provisions of section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.) and advises of the renewal of the National Archives and Records Administration's

(NARA)Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries. In accordance with Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Circular A-135, OMB approved the inclusion of the Advisory Committee on Presidential Libraries in NARA's ceiling of discretionary advisory committees. NARA has determined that the renewal of the Advisory Committee is in the public interest due to the expertise and valuable advice the Committee members provide on issues affecting the functioning of existing Presidential libraries and library programs and the development of future Presidential libraries. NARA will use the Committee's recommendations in its implementation of strategies for the efficient operation of the Presidential libraries. NARA's Committee Management Officer is Mary Ann Hadyka. She can be reached at 301-837-1782. Dated: July 27, 2006. Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States. [FR Doc. E6-12499 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-7580] Notice of Denial of License Amendment Request of FMRI, Muskogee, OK, and Opportunity To Request a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of denial of license amendment request, and opportunity to request a hearing. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by August 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. C. Shepherd, Project Engineer, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7 E18, Washington, DC, 20555, telephone:

(301)415-6712; e-mail: *jcs2@nrc.gov;* fax number

(301)415-5398. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction FMRI is the holder of a source material license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40. By letter dated March 31, 2006 (ML060950342), FMRI submitted a license amendment application to the NRC requesting a modification of Materials License SMB-911, Condition 45, for its site located in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Condition 45 requires the licensee to update the financial projections in Tables 15-11 and 15-12 of its approved Decommissioning Plan

(DP)from the current year through completion of decommissioning. The request would remove the requirement for updating Table 15-12 and replace it with: “FMRI shall submit * * * Form 10-K for Fansteel Inc. within five business days after filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission and a representative shall be available to the NRC on an annual basis upon timely request to discuss any matters disclosed in the Form 10-K.” The NRC staff is denying FMRI's license amendment request because the proposed change does not provide assurance that the NRC will obtain sufficient information about FMRI's future financial ability to meet its decommissioning obligations under the approved DP, as more fully set forth in the staff's letter to FMRI dated July 27, 2006 (ML061710551). II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license amendment to modify financial reporting requirements for FMRI. In accordance with the general requirements in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 2, as amended on January 14, 2004, (69 FR 2182), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must file a written request for a hearing. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(a), a request for a hearing must be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications; 2. Courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; 3. E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *hearingdocket@nrc.gov;* or 4. By facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, at

(301)415-1101; verification number is

(301)415-1966. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b), all documents offered for filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant, FMRI, Inc., 10 Tantalum Place, Muskogee, Oklahoma 74403; and 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests should also be transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725, or by e-mail to *ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov.* The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), (d), and (e), must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.304 (f), a document filed by electronic mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d), as long as an original and two

(2)copies otherwise complying with all of the requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and

(d)are mailed within two

(2)days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2), a request for a hearing must be filed by August 23, 2006. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements a person other than FMRI requesting a hearing on this matter must state: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a person other than FMRI requesting a hearing on this matter must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the license amendment request that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the request fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief. Contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so in writing within ten days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310. III. Further Information The license amendment request and any information referenced therein may be made available pursuant to a protective order and subject to applicable security requirements upon a showing that the petitioner has an interest that may be affected by the proceeding. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-12518 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Number 030-34810] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Termination for Esperion Therapeutics, Inc, Ann Arbor, MI AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Peter J. Lee, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352. Telephone: 630-829-9870; fax number: 630-515-1259; e-mail: *pjl2@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering issuing a license termination of Material License No. 21-32115-01 issued to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. (the licensee), to authorize release of its Ann Arbor facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to terminate Byproduct Material License No. 21-32115-01 issued to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., and release its Ann Arbor, Michigan facility for unrestricted use. On September 24, 1998, the NRC authorized the licensee to use labeled compounds such as hydrogen-3, carbon-14, phosphorus-32, phosphorus-33, sulfur-35, etc. for research and development. On May 17, 2006, the licensee submitted a license termination request to release its Ann Arbor facility for unrestricted use. The licensee has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402, “Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use.” The staff has examined the licensee's request and the information provided in support of its request, including the surveys performed to demonstrate compliance with the release criteria. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated in the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities” (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, the NRC concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: ML061390181 for the May 17, 2006, license termination request and ML062020314 for the EA summarized above. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 24th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-12516 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 03001125] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 45-10414-01, for Unrestricted Release of the James Madison University's Miller Hall Facility in Harrisonburg, VA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas K. Thompson, Sr. Health Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone

(610)337-5303; fax number

(610)337-5269; or by e-mail: *tkt@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 45-10414-01. This license is held by James Madison University (the Licensee), located at Harrisonburg, Virginia. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Miller Hall, located on the James Madison University Campus, for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated November 28, 2005. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's November 28, 2005, license amendment request, resulting in release of Miller Hall for unrestricted use. License No. 45-10414-01 was issued in 1964, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use sealed and unsealed byproduct materials for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods, for teaching and training of students, and calibration of instruments. Miller Hall is situated on the James Madison University Campus in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Miller Hall is a 77,977 square foot building containing teaching laboratories and classrooms, research laboratories, office/storage areas, a large lecture hall and a planetarium. Miller Hall (the Facility) is surrounded on three sides by other James Madison University Campus academic buildings and on the fourth side by Rockingham Memorial Hospital and Cancer Center. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to Rooms G21, G22, G22A, and 110. On May 10, 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with its NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 30.36(g), the Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of Miller Hall. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of many radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted a historical site assessment of byproduct materials activities in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides and determined that residual contamination from operations was unlikely. The Licensee conducted a final status survey on October 18, 2005. This survey covered Rooms G21, G22, G22A, 110, and the adjacent corridor. The final status survey report was submitted with the Licensee's amendment request dated November 28, 2005. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. NRC considers these DCGLs to represent levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), and in compliance with the ALARA requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The Licensee's final status survey results for randomized samples were below these DCGLs, and are thus acceptable here for use as release criteria. Based on its review, the NRC staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Further, no incidents were recorded involving spills or releases of radioactive material at the Facility. Accordingly, there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has found no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Miller Hall facility described above for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d) requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Virginia Department of Health for review on March 23, 2006. On March 23, 2006, the Virginia Department of Health responded by email. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers.

(1)Amendment request dated November 28, 2005 (ML053430158);

(2)Additional information provided by the Licensee on January 13, 2006 (ML060190077);

(3)Additional information provided by the Licensee on May 8, 2006 (ML061290167);

(4)**Federal Register** Notice, Volume 65, No. 114, page 37186, dated Tuesday, June 13, 2000, “Use of Screening Values to Demonstrate Compliance With The Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”

(5)Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;”

(6)Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;”

(7)NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities”. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA this 20th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety. Region I. [FR Doc. E6-12513 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 070-03071] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1990, for Unrestricted Release of the West Virginia University Institute of Technology's Engineering Classroom Building in Montgomery, WV AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Ullrich, Senior Health Physicist, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone

(610)337-5040; fax number

(610)337-5269; or by e-mail: *exu@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1990. This license is held by the West Virginia University Institute of Technology (the Licensee) for its Department of Physics, located at 405 Fayette Place in Montgomery, West Virginia. Issuance of the amendment would authorize Room 105 of the Department of Physics' Engineering Classroom Building (the Facility) to be released for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 9, 2005. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the **Federal Register** . II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 9, 2005, license amendment request, resulting in Room 105 (where licensed materials were used or stored) being released for unrestricted use. License No. SNM-1990 was issued on April 30, 1991, pursuant to 10 CFR parts 40 and 70, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use plutonium-239 and uranium for purposes of storage only until transferred to an authorized recipient. This license superceded License No. SNM-608 (issued June 14, 1965 to authorize the use of plutonium-239 sealed neutron sources for educational and research activities) and License No. SUD-869 (issued April 22, 1966 for use of natural uranium in sub-critical assemblies for educational and research purposes). The Facility is situated on the Licensee's 110-acre campus, which is located in a rural area. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to Room 105, which has approximately 47 square meters of floor area. On June 7, 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of Room 105. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with its NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. Therefore, the Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. The Licensee conducted surveys of Room 105 and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in Room 105, and seeks its unrestricted use. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted in Room 105 shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclide with half-life greater than 120 days: Natural uranium. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the Room 105 areas affected by the use of natural uranium. The Licensee conducted surveys in Room 105 on June 7, 2005, and January 12, 2006, as reflected in the Licensee's amendment request dated August 9, 2005, and subsequent submittals. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The NRC considers these DCGLs to be in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs, and are thus acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Further, no incidents were recorded involving spills or releases of radioactive material at the Facility. Accordingly, there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has found no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility described above for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity in Room 105 and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 40.42(d) and 70.38(d), requiring that decommissioning of source and special nuclear material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that Room 105 meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of West Virginia for review on May 17, 2006. On June 20, 2006, the State of West Virginia responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers.

(1)Letter dated August 9, 2005, transmitting the “Final Status Survey for Decommissioning for West Virginia University Institute of Technology Engineering Classroom Building Room 105” [ML052280399];

(2)Additional information in letters dated November 7, 2005 [ML053200348] and January 19, 2006 [ML060240555], and by facsimile February 10, 2006 [ML060470436];

(3)**Federal Register** Notice, Volume 65, No. 114, page 37186, dated Tuesday, June 13, 2000, “Use of Screening Values to Demonstrate Compliance With The Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination”;

(4)Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination”;

(5)Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions”;

(6)NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.” If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 20th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-12514 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 040-07455] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License No. SMA 1018, Approving Revision 2 of the Erosion Sediment Pollution Control Plan for Excavation of Wetlands Areas at the Whittaker Corporation's Facility in Transfer, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie McLaughlin, Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415; telephone

(610)337-5240; fax number

(610)337-5269; or by e-mail: *mmm3@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Source Materials License No. SMA-1018. This license is held by Whittaker Corporation (the Licensee), for its Whittaker facility (the Facility), located at 99 Crestview Drive in Transfer, Pennsylvania. Issuance of the amendment would approve a revision to the license tie-down document, “Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Activities at the Whittaker Remediation Site (ESPCP).” The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated May 24, 2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EPA)and is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). State environmental agencies involvement may consist of assuming either the general permitting process or the entire permitting program. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has assumed the authority for general permit reviews for proposed activities in wetlands within the Commonwealth. The current ESPCP is a part of the Licensee's NRC license. Amendments to the ESPCP require an amendment to the license. The National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of actions under their jurisdiction. Although the decommissioning activities described in the proposed ESPCP do not differ from those already approved by the NRC in the licensee's current operating procedures, their application to Facility wetlands areas requires NRC to perform this assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee is no longer using licensed materials at the Facility, and has initiated site decommissioning. The Licensee is preparing a formal Decommissioning Plan

(DP)that will describe the methods and procedures to complete decommissioning activities, and will submit the DP as a separate amendment request. Until the NRC approves the Licensee's DP, decommissioning activities must be performed in accordance with NRC-approved procedures. This amendment request involves such a procedure and the action allows the licensee to continue site cleanup activities until the DP is approved. In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1402, a site may be considered for unrestricted release if the residual radioactivity results in a total effective dose equivalent

(TEDE)that does not exceed 25 millirem per year (mrem/yr). To meet this dose criterion, the Licensee must remediate (decommission) the Facility by removing and appropriately disposing of radioactive materials that result in a TEDE that is greater than 25 mrem/yr. The Licensee identified that radioactive materials are present in the subsurface soils of Facility wetlands areas. Removal of these materials is necessary to effect Facility decommissioning. The Licensee will follow the proposed ESPCP to provide protection to the affected wetlands and waterway while removing this material. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Both the previous and the proposed ESPCP revisions provide a brief description of the site, its history and current activities, and topography and soil makeup. There is also no change to the method for preventing sediments generated from storm water runoff from entering the wetlands areas and the Shenango River. Installed silt fencing at the base of the slag pile slopes remains the control method for this situation. The fencing in some locations is 30-inch filter fabric reinforced with staked straw bales and 33-inch filter fabric supported by chain link fence in other locations. In addition to the silt fencing, which will remain installed both during and in-between excavation activities, weekly site walkdowns are performed during active excavation campaigns. The walkdowns include inspection and maintenance of the silt fencing and removal of any built up debris or sediment from the base of the fencing. Any necessary repairs to the fencing are reported to the appropriate Commonwealth agency. During periods of Facility inactivity (i.e., winter shut-down), the site walkdowns are performed monthly. The proposed action does not involve a change to the silt fencing use or design, or to the site walkdowns. The current ESPCP describes the delineation of Facility wetlands and certifies that slag and material removal from these areas will be performed by hand (i.e., heavy equipment will not be used and excavations will not be involved). The current ESPCP does allow for material excavation using heavy equipment within the Facility floodway areas, and specifies that such activities will only remove material from the floodway, and will not add any. The current ESPCP was submitted to the PADEP as a section of the Facility Restoration Plan, which was provided to meet the Commonwealth's requirements for approving Facility activities. The Commonwealth approved the current ESPCP and determined that the proposed activities had no significant environmental impacts, and qualified for a waiver from the permit requirements in accordance with 25 PA Code 105.12. NRC approved the current ESPCP as part of the most recent license renewal, as described previously in this report. The proposed activity amends the ESPCP to allow for excavation of material from within the Facility-delineated wetlands. The proposed ESPCP states that soil borings may be obtained from within this area using a boring machine, so that the soil may be analyzed for the presence of radioactive material. In addition, excavation of material within this area may be performed, and some trees removed so that radioactive slag within the root systems may be accessed and disposed. The ESPCP proposes to minimize the environmental impacts from these activities by: Extending the silt fencing to contain these areas; setting up the excavating equipment in non-wetlands areas and, to the extent possible, extending the reach of the arm so that only the bucket impacts the wetlands (i.e., rather than driving an excavator truck over the wetlands soil); and minimizing the amount of soil removed from the wetlands. The proposed ESPCP commits that the Licensee will restore the wetland, floodway, and riverbank upon completion of slag removal. The specific restoration activities will require PADEP approval and will be provided in a later ESPCP revision. The Licensee submitted the proposed ESPCP to PADEP as a revision to the Facility Restoration Plan. PADEP approved the revision on April 19, 2006, and again determined that the proposed activities qualify for a waiver from the permitting requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed activity will have a minimal effect on environmental resources. The activities described in the proposed ESPCP involve removal of material from within Facility wetlands areas, but the amount of material and the impact to these areas will be minimized to the extent possible. Additionally, the proposed activity provides for the use of engineering barriers (silt fencing) to prevent migration of sediment and contaminants into the river. The proposed activity involves only the removal of soil and slag material. The Licensee will not be adding material to the wetlands or waterway under this proposed action. Based on its review, the staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would deny the amendment request for the proposed ESPCP. This alternative would result in no environmental impacts, but would prohibit the removal of contaminated material from the Facility wetlands areas. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 20.1402, requiring licensees to verify that residual radioactivity meets the radiological unrestricted release criteria. The Licensee may not be able to meet the unrestricted release criteria if the material in these areas is not removed from the Facility and appropriately disposed. Additionally, denying the amendment request would prevent the Licensee from completing decommissioning in the timeframe required by 10 CFR 40.42(h). The environmental impacts of the proposed action are not significant, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent NRC guidance and regulations. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to PADEP for review on June 9, 2006. On June 14, 2006, PADEP responded by email that PADEP staff involved with both radiation protection and with watershed management reviewed the EA. PADEP agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. Amendment request with Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan Revision 2, dated May 24, 2006 (ML061570151); 2. Title 25, Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 105, “Dam Safety and Waterway Management;” 3. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 230, Section 404(b)(1), “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material;” 4. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, “Radiological Criteria for License Termination;” 5. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material;” 6. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;” If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 25th day of July. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Marie Miller, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-12515 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P POSTAL RATE COMMISSION [Docket No. MC2006-6; Order No. 1472] Extension of Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission. ACTION: Notice and order. SUMMARY: This document informs the public that the Postal Service is seeking approval of a one-year extension of the negotiated service agreement with Capital One Services, Inc. The document describes the agreement, identifies certain preliminary decisions, and addresses procedural steps, including key deadlines. DATES: 1. August 14, 2006: Deadline for intervention, statements identifying issues requiring a hearing, and objections to rule 197 treatment. 2. August 15, 2006: Prehearing conference. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at *http://www.prc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel, at 202-789-6820. Procedural History Capital One Services, Inc. Negotiated Service Agreement, 67 FR 61355 (September 30, 2002). On July 26, 2006, the United States Postal Service filed a request seeking a recommended decision from the Postal Rate Commission approving a one-year extension of the negotiated service agreement with Capital One Services, Inc. 1 The Capital One negotiated service agreement was first recommended by the Commission on May 15, 2003, 2 and ordered into effect for a period of three years ending September 1, 2006, by the United States Postal Service Board of Governors. 3 The Request, which includes seven attachments, was filed pursuant to chapter 36 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. 3601 *et seq.* 4 The Postal Service asks that this case proceed under the Commission's rules for requests to renew previously recommended negotiated service agreements with existing participants. Rule 197 [39 CFR 3001.197]. 1 Request of the United States Postal Service for a Recommended Decision to Extend the Duration of the Previously Recommended Negotiated Service Agreement with Capital One, July 26, 2006 (Request). 2 PRC Op. MC2002-2, May 15, 2003. 3 Decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on the Opinion and Recommended Decision of the Postal Rate Commission Recommending Experimental Rate and Service Changes to Implement Negotiated Service Agreement with Capital One, Docket No. MC2002-2, June 2, 2003. 4 Attachment A to the Request contains proposed changes to the Domestic Mail Classification Schedule; Attachment B contains the current rate schedules, which have not been modified from Docket No. MC2002-2; Attachment C is a certification required by Commission rule 193(i) specifying that the cost statements and supporting data submitted by the Postal Service, which purport to reflect the books of the Postal Service, accurately set forth the results shown by such books; Attachment D is an index of testimony and exhibits; Attachment E is a compliance statement addressing satisfaction of various filing requirements; Attachment F is a copy of the amendment to the Negotiated Service Agreement and the Negotiated Service Agreement itself; and Attachment G contains the decision of the Governors for the original Negotiated Service Agreement. The Postal Service has identified Capital One Services, Inc. (Capital One), along with itself, as parties to the negotiated service agreement. This identification serves as notice of intervention by Capital One. It also indicates that Capital One shall be considered a co-proponent, procedurally and substantively, of the Postal Service's Request during the Commission's review of the negotiated service agreement. Rule 191(b) [39 CFR 3001.191(b)]. In support of the direct case, the Postal Service has filed Direct Testimony of Jessica Lowrance on Behalf of the United States Postal Service, July 26, 2006 (USPS-T-1). The Request further relies on record evidence entered in Docket No. MC2002-2. The Postal Service's Compliance Statement, Request Attachment E, identifies the Docket No. MC2002-2 material on which it proposes to rely. Rule 197(b) [39 CFR 3001.197(b)] requires the Postal Service to provide written notice of its Request, either by hand delivery or by First-Class Mail, to all participants in the Commission docket established to consider the original agreement, Docket No. MC2002-2. This requirement permits an abbreviated intervention period by providing additional time for the most likely participants to decide whether or not to intervene. A copy of the Postal Service's notice was filed with the Commission on July 26, 2006. 5 5 Notice of the United States Postal Service of Filing Request for a Recommended Decision to Extend the Duration of the Previously Recommended Negotiated Service Agreement with Capital One, July 26, 2006. The Postal Service submitted a contemporaneous filing requesting the expedited issuance of a recommended decision. 6 The Motion further requests that participants in this docket accompany their notices of intervention with detailed pleadings responding to an order to show cause why the term extension should not be recommended as proposed. 6 Motion of the United States Postal Service for Expedited Issuance of a Recommended Decision, July 26, 2006 (Motion). The Postal Service's Request, the accompanying testimony of witness Lowrance (USPS-T-1), the original Docket No. MC2002-2 material, and other related material are available for inspection at the Commission's docket section during regular business hours. They also can be accessed electronically, via the Internet, on the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.prc.gov* ). I. Background: The Capital One Negotiated Service Agreement, Recommended in Docket No. MC2002-2 The Capital One negotiated service agreement includes two significant mail service features that form the bases of the agreement—an address correction service feature, and a declining block rate volume discount feature. The address correction service feature provides Capital One, at certain levels of volume, electronic address corrections without fee for First-Class Mail solicitations that are undeliverable as addressed (UAA). In return for receipt of electronic address correction, Capital One will no longer receive physical return of its UAA First-Class solicitation mail that cannot be forwarded. Capital One will also be required to maintain and improve the address quality for its First-Class Mail. PRC Op. MC2002-2, para. 2004. Use of the address correction service feature is a prerequisite to use of the second feature of the negotiated service agreement, a declining block rate volume discount. This feature provides Capital One with a per-piece discount for bulk First-Class Mail volume above an annual threshold volume. The per-piece discount varies from 3 to 6 cents under a “declining-block” rate structure. The Commission's analysis of the Capital One negotiated service agreement focused on assuring that the agreement would not make mailers other than Capital One worse off. *Id.,* para. 8006. To meet this condition, the Commission's recommendation of the Capital One negotiated service agreement included the addition of a provision establishing a cumulative three-year stop-loss limit on rate discounts of $40.637 million. *Id.,* paras. 5116, 8011. The Commission found that the estimates of before-rates volumes for Capital One were so unreliable that without a stop-loss provision there would be no reasonable assurance that the Postal Service would not lose money on the Capital One negotiated service agreement. *Id.,* para. 8013. II. The Request to Extend the Duration of the Capital One Negotiated Service Agreement The Postal Service proposes to extend the duration of the ongoing negotiated service agreement with Capital One by one year while the parties develop a new negotiated service agreement to be filed in the upcoming year. The Postal Service asserts that the Capital One negotiated service agreement has proven successful, benefiting both the Postal Service and the mailing community as a whole. The Postal Service and Capital One propose no other modifications to the currently in effect negotiated service agreement and indicate their intent to terminate the ongoing agreement once a subsequent agreement is reached. Request Attachment F at 2. The Postal Service states that it is probable that no discounts will be earned in the third year of the agreement, but continuation of the agreement will serve two policy objectives. First, Capital One will be provided with an incentive to increase solicitations during the extension period. Second, Capital One will maintain its contractual obligation to employ worksharing practices related to Address Correction Service

(ACS)as well as its agreement to participate in mail quality programs. The Postal Service asserts that the value from extending the current agreement will primarily occur from the use of electronic ACS notices to replace manual notices. The estimated savings from marketing pieces converted to electronic ACs notices in the extension period is $5.1 million. USPS-T-1 at 6. III. Commission Response *Applicability of the rules for requests to renew previously recommended negotiated service agreements.* For administrative purposes, the Commission has docketed the instant filing as a request predicated on the extension of a previously recommended negotiated service agreement which is currently in effect. A final determination regarding the appropriate characterization of the request and application of the expedited rules, rule 197 [39 CFR 3001.197], will not be made until after the prehearing conference. *Representation of the general public.* In conformance with section 3624(c) of title 39, the Commission designates Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the Commission's Office of the Consumer Advocate, to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. Pursuant to this designation, Ms. Driefuss will direct the activities of Commission personnel assigned to assist her and, upon request, will supply their names for the record. Neither Ms. Dreifuss nor any of the assigned personnel will participate in or provide advice on any Commission decision in this proceeding. *Intervention.* Those wishing to be heard in this matter are directed to file a notice of intervention on or before August 14, 2006. The notice of intervention shall be filed using the Internet (Filing Online) at the Commission's Web site ( *http://www.prc.gov* ), unless a waiver is obtained for hardcopy filing. Rules 9(a) and 10(a) [39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 10(a)]. Notices should indicate whether participation will be on a full or limited basis. *See* rules 20 and 20a [39 CFR 3001.20 and 20a]. No decision has been made at this point on whether a hearing will be held in this case. *Prehearing conference.* A prehearing conference will be held August 15, 2006, at 2 p.m. in the Commission's hearing room. Participants shall be prepared to address whether or not it is appropriate to proceed under rule 197 [39 CFR 3001.197], and to identify any issue(s) that would indicate the need to schedule extended discovery or a hearing. Rule 197(c) [39 CFR 3001.197(c)]. Participants intending to object to proceeding under rule 197 [39 CFR 3001.197] shall file supporting written argument, if any, by August 14, 2006. Participants also shall file statements identifying issues that would indicate the need to schedule a hearing by August 14, 2006. The Commission intends to make a decision on these issues shortly after the prehearing conference. *Motion for expedition.* The Postal Service's motion for expedition and to show cause is denied. Rule 197(d) [39 CFR 3001.197(d)] already provides for expedited treatment of requests to renew negotiated service agreements. Likewise, rule 197(c) [38 CFR 3001.197(c)] already requires participants to plead whether or not any material issues of fact exist that require discovery or evidentiary hearings at the time of the prehearing conference. Ordering Paragraphs It is ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket No. MC20056-6 to consider the Postal Service Request referred to in the body of this order. 2. The Commission will sit *en banc* in this proceeding. 3. Shelley S. Dreifuss, director of the Commission's Office of the Consumer Advocate, is designated to represent the interests of the general public. 4. The deadline for filing notices of intervention is August 14, 2006. 5. A prehearing conference will be held August 15, 2006 at 2 p.m. in the Commission's hearing room. 6. Participants shall file statements identifying issues that would indicate the need to schedule a hearing, or objections to proceeding under rule 197 [39 CFR 3001.197] by August 14, 2006. 7. The Motion of the United States Postal Service for Expedited Issuance of a Recommended Decision, filed July 26, 2006, is denied. 8. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order in the **Federal Register** . Issued: July 27, 2006. By the Commission. Steven W. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-6653 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

CFR