50420 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 

record the results of the examination 

and functional test in a book that will 

be maintained on the surface and made 

available to the authorized 

representative of the Secretary. This is 

considered an acceptable alternative 

method for the Big Run Mine. MSHA 

grants the petition for modification for 

the deluge-type water spray systems 

installed at belt-conveyor drives in lieu 

of blow-off dust covers for nozzles at the 

Big Run Mine with conditions.

Docket No.: M–2005–026–C. 

FR Notice: 70 FR 22376. 

Petitioner: Spartan Mining Company. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002. 

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s 

proposal is to use a 2,400-volt power 

center to power a continuous miner 

with high-voltage trailing cables inby 

the last open crosscut and within 150 

feet of pillar workings. This is 

considered an acceptable alternative 

method for the Scotch Pine Mine and 

Midway Mine. MSHA grants the 

petition for modification for the use of 

the 2,400-volt high-voltage continuous 

miner(s) at the Scotch Pine Mine and 

Midway Mine with conditions.

Docket No.: M–2005–027–C. 

FR Notice: 70 FR 22376. 

Petitioner: Aracoma Coal Company. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

75.1909(b)(6). 

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s 

proposal is to use one six-wheel Getman 

Roadbuilder grader, Model RDG–1504A, 

serial number 6782 without front 

brakes, as it was originally designed. 

The grader is equipped with dual brake 

systems on the four (4) rear wheels and 

designed to prevent loss of braking due 

to a single component failure. The 

petitioner will provide training to grader 

operators on how to lower the 

moldboard for additional stopping 

capability in emergencies; to recognize 

the appropriate speeds to use on 

different roadway conditions; and to 

limit the maximum speed of the grader 

to 10 miles per hour. This is considered 

an acceptable alternative method for the 

Aracoma Alma #1 Mine. MSHA grants 

the petition for modification for the 

Aracoma Alma #1 Mine with 

conditions.

Docket No.: M–2005–033–C. 

FR Notice: 70 FR 28321. 

Petitioner: Coulterville Coal 

Company, LLC. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

75.1909(b)(6). 

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s 

proposal is to use one six-wheel Getman 

Roadbuilder grader, Model RDG–1504S, 

serial number 6739 without front 

brakes, as it was originally designed. 

The grader is equipped with dual brake 

systems on the four (4) rear wheels and 

designed to prevent loss of braking due 

to a single component failure. The 

petitioner will provide training to grader 

operators on how to limit the maximum 

speed of the Roadbuilder to 10 miles per 

hour by permanently blocking out any 

gear that would provide higher speed, or 

use transmission and differential ratios 

that would limit the maximum speed to 

10 miles per hour; to recognize the 

appropriate speeds to use on different 

roadway conditions and slopes; and to 

lower the grader blade for additional 

stopping capability in emergencies. This 

is considered an acceptable alternative 

method for the Gateway Mine. MSHA 

grants the petition for modification for 

the Gateway Mine with conditions.

Docket No.: M–2004–009–M. 

FR Notice: 69 FR 69415. 

Petitioner: Unimin Corporation. 

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 

56.13020. 

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s 

proposal is to implement a clothes 

cleaning booth process that has been 

jointly developed with and successfully 

tested by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), for the use of controlled 

compressed air for cleaning miners’ dust 

laden clothing. This is considered an 

acceptable alternative method for the 

Marston Plant Mine. MSHA grants the 

petition for modification for only miners 

who are trained in the operation of the 

NIOSH tested clothes cleaning booth for 

cleaning their dust-laden clothes at the 

Marston Plant Mine with conditions. 

[FR Doc. 05–17003 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP 

AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 

FOUNDATION 

The United States Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution; 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Extension of Currently 

Approved Information Collection; 

Comment Request; U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution 

Application for the National Roster of 

Environmental Dispute Resolution and 

Consensus Building Professionals

AGENCY: Morris K. Udall Scholarship 

and Excellence in National 

Environmental Policy Foundation, U.S. 

Institute for Environmental Conflict 

Resolution.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act and 

supporting regulations, this document 

announces that the U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution (the 

Institute), part of the Morris K. Udall 

Foundation, is submitting to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) a 

request for an extension for the 

currently approved information 

collection (ICR), OMB Control Number 

3320–0008: Application for the National 

Roster of Environmental Dispute 

Resolution and Consensus Building 

Professionals (‘‘National Roster of ECR 

Practitioners’’ or ‘‘roster’’), currently 

operating pursuant to OMB clearance 

issued October 17, 2002 and which 

expires October 31, 2005. The Institute 

published a Federal Register notice on 

June 20, 2005 (70 FR 35457–35460), to 

solicit public comments for a 60-day 

period. The Institute received one 

comment seeking clarification of the 

roster members’ ‘‘neutrality’’. The 

Institute provided a responsive 

explanation. The comment did not 

relate to the application which the 

subject of this ICR; thus, no changes 

were made to the application. The 

purpose of this notice is to allow an 

additional 30 days for public comments 

regarding this information collection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before September 26, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Direct comments to: Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Attention: Keith Belton, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Desk Officer for the Morris K. 

Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 

National Environmental Policy 

Foundation, U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution; 

kbelton@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a copy of 

the ICR, contact Joan C. Calcagno, Roster 

Manager, U.S. Institute for 

Environmental Conflict Resolution, 130 

South Scott Ave., Tucson, Arizona 

85701. Fax: 520–670–5530. Phone: 520–

670–5299. E-mail: roster@ecr.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Title for the Collection of 

Information 

Application for National Roster of 

Environmental Dispute Resolution and 

Consensus Building Professionals 

(‘‘National Roster of ECR Practitioners’’). 

B. Potentially Affected Persons 

You are potentially affected by this 

action if you are a dispute resolution or 

consensus building professional in the 

environmental or natural resources field 

who wishes to be listed on the National 

Roster of Environmental Dispute 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 50421

Resolution and Consensus Building 

Professionals. 

C. Questions To Consider in Making 

Comments 

The U.S. Institute for Environmental 

Conflict Resolution requests your 

comments to any of the following 

questions related to collecting 

information for the extension of the 

Application for the National Roster of 

ECR Practitioners: 

(1) Is the continued use of the 

application (‘‘collection of 

information’’) necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information has practical utility? 

(2) Is the agency’s estimate of the time 

spent completing the application 

(‘‘burden of the proposed collection of 

information’’) accurate, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used? 

(3) Can you suggest ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected? 

(4) Can you suggest 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 technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology? 

D. Abstract 

The U.S. Institute for Environmental 

Conflict Resolution plans to continue 

collecting information from 

environmental dispute resolution and 

consensus building neutral 

professionals who desire to become 

members of the National Roster of ECR 

Practitioners, from which the Institute 

and those involved in environmental, 

natural resource, or public lands 

disputes may locate providers of neutral 

services. Responses to the collection of 

information (the application) are 

voluntary, but required to obtain a 

benefit (listing on the National Roster of 

Environmental Dispute Resolution and 

Consensus Building Professionals). 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 OMB control 

number. 

Background Information: U.S. Institute 

for Environmental Conflict Resolution 

The U.S. Institute for Environmental 

Conflict Resolution was created in 1998 

by the Environmental Policy and 

Conflict Resolution Act (Pub. L. 105–

156). The U.S. Institute is a Federal 

program established by the U.S. 

Congress to assist parties in resolving 

environmental, natural resource, and 

public lands conflicts. The Institute is 

part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, 

an independent Federal agency of the 

executive branch overseen by a board of 

trustees appointed by the President. The 

Institute serves as an impartial, nonpartisan institution providing 

professional expertise, services, and 

resources to all parties involved in such 

disputes, regardless of who initiates or 

pays for assistance. The Institute helps 

parties determine whether collaborative 

problem solving is appropriate for 

specific environmental conflicts, how 

and when to bring all the parties to the 

table, and whether a third-party 

facilitator or mediator might be helpful 

in assisting the parties in their efforts to 

reach consensus or to resolve the 

conflict. In addition, the Institute 

maintains the National Roster of ECR 

Practitioners, a roster of qualified 

facilitators and mediators with 

substantial experience in environmental 

conflict resolution, and can help parties 

in selecting an appropriate neutral. The 

Institute accomplishes most of its work 

by partnering, contracting with, or 

referral to, experienced practitioners. 

The Need for and Use of the Information 

Collected in the Application for the 

Roster of ECR Practitioners

Roster of ECR Practitioners 

Application: The application can be 

viewed on-line from the Institute’s Web 

site: http://www.ecr.gov (simply register 

in the application system to access and 

review an application). A hardcopy 

application may also be obtained from 

the Institute for those without Web 

access (see contact information above). 

Background Information: The 

information collected in the application 

for the National Roster of ECR 

Practitioners is the basis for an on-line 

database searchable by a combination of 

10 criteria designed to locate 

appropriate practitioners by matching 

desired characteristics with the 

information in the application. The 

application was first available in 

September 1999 and remains available 

on a continuous basis. The Roster of 

ECR Practitioners first became 

operational in February 2000 with 60 

members and currently includes over 

255 members from 41 states, the District 

of Columbia, and 2 Canadian provinces. 

They represent a broad cross-section of 

professional backgrounds and a broad 

distribution of case experience across 42 

types of case issues. Each member has 

documented experience which meets 

the roster entry criteria, and each has 

experience as a neutral in some or all of 

the following: mediation, facilitation, 

consensus building, process design, 

conflict assessment, system design, 

neutral evaluation/fact finding, 

superfund allocation, and/or regulatory 

negotiation. 

The specific entry criteria and 

applicable definitions are available from 

the Institute’s Web site: http://ecr.gov/

roster.htm. Generally stated, the entry 

criteria require that an applicant has: 

(1) Served as the lead neutral in a 

collaborative process (e.g., mediation, 

consensus building, conflict assessment) 

for at least 200 case hours in two to ten 

environmental cases, and 

(2) accumulated a total of 60 points 

across three categories: Additional case 

experience and complex case 

experience; experience as a trainer or 

trainee; and substantive work/

volunteer/educational experience in 

fields related to Alternative Dispute 

Resolution/Environmental Conflict 

Resolution, such as law, science, public 

administration. 

Use of the National Roster of ECR 

Practitioners: The roster search and 

referral service has been accessible 

through the Institute since February 

2000. The Institute uses the roster 

(specifically the information collected 

in the application) as a resource when 

making referrals to those searching for 

neutral ECR professionals with specific 

experience, backgrounds, or expertise 

(external referrals). The Institute also 

uses the roster as a resource when 

locating appropriate ECR neutral 

professionals with whom to partner/

sub-contract for projects in which the 

Institute is involved (internal referrals), 

pursuant to the Institute’s statutory 

direction to work with practitioners 

located near the dispute, when 

practicable and appropriate. The roster 

referral system is enhanced through 

cooperation with existing programs and 

networks of environmental disputeresolution and consensus-building 

practitioners familiar with the issues in 

their respective States and regions. 

In October 2004, the roster became 

directly available on the Web to anyone 

interested in locating ECR practitioners. 

Since then, anyone interested in 

locating ECR practitioners can contact 

the Institute for a referral through the 

Roster Manager or register in the search 

system and search the roster themselves. 

The Roster Manager remains available to 

assist searchers in getting the best use of 

the roster search and to provide advice 

about next steps. 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) personnel have had direct, 

electronic access to search the roster 

since February 2000. The Department of 

Interior Office of Collaborative Action 

and Dispute Resolution and ADR 

50422 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 

personnel from various DOI bureaus 

have had direct access since November 

2002. Roster Members have also had 

direct access to the search since May 

2004. Statistics related to the use of the 

roster since February 2000 can be found 

in the Roster Program Overview, 

available from: http://ecr.gov/roster/

progsumm.html.

Federal agencies are not required to 

select from the roster. Professionals not 

on the roster remain fully eligible to 

serve as ECR practitioners in disputes 

involving Federal agencies. Finally, 

being listed on the roster does not 

guarantee additional work for the 

practitioner. 

Development and Need for the 

National Roster of ECR Practitioners: 

The roster was developed with the 

support of the Environmental Protection 

Agency. Based on a 1997 study 

concerning the potential of a national 

roster of qualified practitioners, EPA 

decided to support the development of 

such a roster through the Institute. 

To develop the project, the EPA and 

the Institute brought together a work 

group consisting of EPA dispute 

resolution professionals and contracting 

officers, State dispute resolution 

officials, private dispute resolution 

practitioners and academics. Informed 

in part by ideas from this group, the 

EPA and the Institute proposed roster 

entry qualifications and draft 

application, which were published in 

the Federal Register in November 1998. 

Before the entry criteria and application 

were finalized, the comments received 

in response to the Federal Register

notice were reviewed. Outreach 

continued through meetings and 

newsletter articles, as well as individual 

communications to professional 

associations, State and Federal 

Government agencies, dispute 

resolution firms, individual 

practitioners, professional associations 

of attorneys, environmental and citizen 

groups. 

The roster was created, and continues 

to be needed, for several reasons. The 

use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in 

the environmental and public policy 

arena has grown markedly over the last 

two decades. In this context, ADR 

processes now include techniques 

ranging from conflict prevention, such 

as consensus building and facilitation of 

public policy dialogues, to specific 

dispute resolution through assisted 

negotiations and mediation. The 

number of environmental conflict 

resolution (ECR) practitioners has grown 

as the field has gained prominence and 

professionals from a variety of 

disciplines have become attracted to its 

advantages and opportunities. 

An essential step in any dispute 

resolution process occurs when parties 

select a practitioner. Parties making the 

selection rightfully expect that the 

practitioner will be qualified to provide 

the service sought and has experience 

and style matched well to the nature of 

the issues and to the parties. Thus, the 

National Roster of ECR Practitioners is 

designed to advance the interests of the 

growing field of dispute resolution, 

reflect the evolving standards of best 

practice, and help direct the 

expenditure of public funds for quality 

services. 

In fifteen years of using ADR, before 

the creation of the National Roster of 

ECR Practitioners, EPA found that 

parties to a dispute or controversy 

generated a list of desired 

characteristics, such as experience with 

specific types of issues, cases or 

disputes, location, and other factors, 

that they would use in an attempt to 

identify the right person to assist them. 

Locating practitioners meeting these 

criteria was often a ‘‘hit-or-miss’’

experience depending on the resources, 

available time, and experience of the 

parties with locating appropriate 

neutrals.

Although the EPA operates a national 

service contract that manages major 

cases through a list of experienced 

providers, it is limited in scope and 

membership, and as a consequence it 

can be burdensome to use to identify 

neutrals for small or localized cases. 

Most other Federal agencies have no 

vehicle or information available to assist 

in this important first step to conducting 

a good dispute resolution process. 

More specifically, the National Roster 

of ECR Practitioners is necessary for the 

proper performance of the Institute’s 

goals: to resolve Federal environmental 

disputes in a timely and constructive 

manner; to increase the appropriate use 

of environmental conflict resolution; to 

improve the ability of Federal agencies 

and other interested parties to engage in 

ECR effectively; and to promote 

collaborative problem-solving and 

consensus-building during the design 

and implementation of Federal 

environmental policies so as to prevent 

and reduce the incidence of future 

environmental disputes. 

In addition, the U.S. Institute’s 

enabling legislation directs the Institute 

to work with practitioners located near 

the conflict whenever practical. 

Consistent with this mandate, the 

Institute must be able to identify 

appropriate experienced dispute 

resolution and consensus building 

professionals in an efficient manner. 

Finally, the Administrative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 

571 et seq.) authorizes the Federal 

government to contract with dispute 

resolution professionals (e.g., facilitators 

or mediators) to assist it and other 

parties to disputes in reaching an 

agreement, settlement, or consensus. 

The ADR Act authorizes the government 

to take steps to make identifying and 

contracting with neutrals easier (cf. 5 

U.S.C. 573(c)). 

Thus, the goal of the National Roster 

of ECR Practitioners and the referral 

system is to improve access to qualified 

environmental dispute resolution and 

consensus building professionals for the 

Institute and others sponsoring or 

engaging in environmental conflict 

resolution processes. The roster 

expedites the identification of 

appropriate professionals, shortens the 

time needed to complete contracting 

documents, and helps refer parties to 

practitioners, particularly practitioners 

in the locale of the dispute. 

The roster and the referral system 

provide an efficient, credible and userfriendly source from which to 

systematically identify experienced 

environmental neutral professionals; 

increase the use of collaborative 

processes by providing a useful tool for 

locating appropriate practitioners; and 

provide users with detailed Practitioner 

Profiles, reflecting information 

contained in the application, to be used 

as a helpful first step in the process of 

selecting an appropriate neutral. 

E. Burden Statement 

The application compiles data 

available from the resumes of dispute 

resolution and consensus building 

professionals into a format that is 

standardized for efficient and fair 

eligibility review, database searches, 

and retrievals. A professional needs to 

complete the form only one time. Once 

the application is approved, the roster 

member has continual access to his or 

her on-line account to update 

information, on a voluntary basis. The 

burden includes time spent to review 

instructions, review resume 

information, and enter the information 

in the form. 

Likely Respondents: Environmental 

dispute resolution and consensus 

building professionals (new 

respondents); existing roster members 

(for updating). 

Proposed Frequency of Response: one, 

with voluntary updates approximately 

once per year. 

Estimated Number of New 

Respondents (first extension year): 30. 

Estimated Number of Existing 

Respondents—for updating (first 

extension year): 125. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Notices 50423

*The actual cost estimate for this information 

collection may be less because this hourly rate is 

what is paid for services as a neutral and 

necessarily is set by the neutral to factor in time 

spent in the administration of the neutral’s business 

and overhead costs. Indeed, fully burdened labor 

rates for ‘‘professional specialty and technical’’

occupations from Bureau of Labor Statistics tables 

indicate that an hourly rate as low as $36 may be 

appropriate.

Estimated Number of New 

Respondents (per year for succeeding 

year): 30. 

Estimated Number of Existing 

Respondents—for updating (per year for 

succeeding year): 125. 

Respondent Time Burden Estimates:

Estimated Time per New Response:

150 minutes (2.5 hours). 

Estimated Number of Updates (per 

year): 1, for 125 existing respondents. 

Estimated Time for Update: 15 

minutes. 

Estimated Total First Extension Year 

Burden: 4500 minutes (75 hours) (30 

new respondents); 1875 minutes (31.25 

hours) (125 updates). 

Estimated Total Subsequent Year 

Annual Burden: 4500 minutes (75 

hours) (30 new respondents); 1875 

minutes (31.25 hours) (125 updates). 

Respondent Cost Burden Estimates (at 

$150. per hour * ): No capital or start-up 

costs.

Estimated Cost per Respondent (first 

extension year): $375 (new 

respondents); $38 (updates). 

Estimated Cost per Respondent 

(subsequent year): $375 (new 

respondents); $38 (updates). 

Estimated Total First Extension Year 

Burden: $11,250 (new respondents); 

$4,750 (updates). 

Estimated Total Subsequent Year 

Annual Burden: $11,250 (new 

respondents); $4,750 (updates). 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; 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 and 

transmitting information.

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 5601–5609.

Dated the 22nd day of August 2005. 

Christopher L. Helms, 

Executive Director, Morris K. Udall 

Scholarship and Excellence in National 

Environmental Policy Foundation, and 

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–16985 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–FN–P

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Proposal Review Panel for Materials 

Research; Notice of Meeting 

In accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463 as amended), the National Science 

Foundation announces the following 

meeting: 

Name: Proposal Review Panel for 

Materials Research (DMR) #1203. 

Dates & Times: September 12, 2005, 

1–5 p.m.; September 13, 2005, 8 a.m.–

8 p.m.; September 14, 2005, 8 a.m.–3:30 

p.m. 

Place: Synchrotron Radiation Center, 

3731 Schneider Drive, Stoughton, WI 

53589. 

Type of Meeting: Partially closed. 

Contact Person: Dr. Guebre X. 

Tessema, Program Director, National 

Facilities Programs, Division of 

Materials Research, room 1080, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 

Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 

telephone (703) 292–4935. 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide 

advice and recommendations 

concerning a renewal proposal 

submitted to NSF for financial support 

for the Synchrotron Radiation Center at 

Wisconsin. 

Agenda 

Monday, September 12 (at PSL 

Conference Room) 

1 p.m.–2 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session 

2 p.m.–6 p.m. Open—Tour of SRC, with 

User Presentations Welcome; 

Introduction; Discussion 

Tuesday, September 13

8:30 a.m.–12:10 p.m. Open—Overview 

of Programs 

12:10 p.m.–1 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session 

1 p.m.–5 p.m. Open—Review; User 

Research; Safety; Education and 

Outreach; Beamlines and 

Instrumentation; Plans for the 

Future; Budget 

5 p.m.–6:30 p.m. Closed—Executive 

Session 

Wednesday, September 14

8:30 a.m.–1:30 p.m. Closed—Meeting 

with Institutional Representatives; 

Review and Prepare Site Visit 

Report

Reason for Closing: The work being 

reviewed may include information of a 

proprietary or confidential nature, 

including technical information; 

financial data, such as salaries and 

personal information concerning 

individuals associated with the 

proposals. These matters are exempt 

under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 

Government in the Sunshine Act.

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05–17039 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 40–08838] 

Notice of Withdrawal of License 

Amendment Request From the 

Department of the Army, U.S. Army 

Garrison, Rock Island Arsenal, Rock 

Island, IL

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of license 

amendment request by the Department 

of the Army (Army or licensee) for its 

Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG) site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

McLaughlin, Project Manager, 

Decommissioning Directorate, Division 

of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; 

Telephone: (301) 415–5869; fax number: 

(301) 415–5398; e-mail: tgm@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On September 22, 2003, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff 

received a request from the Army for a 

license amendment that would create a 

5-year renewable possession-only 

license (5-year POLA) for its JPG site. 

On October 28, 2003, the NRC Staff 

published a Notice of Consideration of 

Amendment Request for the Jefferson 

Proving Ground Site and Opportunity 

for a Hearing in the Federal Register. 

On May 25, 2005, the Army submitted 

a superseding license amendment 

request for an alternate schedule 

(alternate schedule request) for 

decommissioning JPG. On June 16, 

2005, the Staff accepted the alternate 

schedule request for review. On June 27, 

2005, the Staff published A Notice of 

Consideration of Amendment Request 

for an Alternate Decommissioning 

Schedule and Opportunity to Request a 

Hearing in the Federal Register. On July 

19, 2005, the Army formally withdrew 

its request for a 5-year POLA for JPG. 

Thus, the Staff has discontinued its 

review of the 5-year POLA.