55818 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices 

the term ‘‘ED PUBS’’ in the subject line 

of the electronic message. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all comments about 

this notice in room 2E103, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, 

DC, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Eastern time, Monday 

through Friday of each week except 

Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record 

On request, we will supply an 

appropriate aid, such as a reader or 

print magnifier, to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

aid, please contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy 

Craig. Telephone: (202) 401–0480. If you 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal 

Relay Service (FRS) at 1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) 

requires the Department to publish in 

the Federal Register this notice of an 

altered system of records maintained by 

the Department. The Department’s 

regulations implementing the Privacy 

Act are contained in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) in 34 CFR part 5b. 

The Privacy Act applies to 

information about an individual that 

contains individually identifiable 

information that is retrieved by a unique 

identifier associated with the 

individual, such as a name or social 

security number. The information about 

the individual is called a ‘‘record,’’ and 

the system, whether manual or 

computer-based, is called a ‘‘system of 

records.’’

The Privacy Act requires each agency 

to publish a notice of new or altered 

systems of records in the Federal 

Register. Each agency also must submit 

reports to the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the Chair of the 

Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, and 

the Chair of the House Committee on 

Government Reform, whenever the 

agency publishes a new system of 

records or makes a significant change to 

an established system of records. Minor 

changes to an established system of 

records, such as the amendments to the 

ED PUBS system of records, do not 

require an agency to prepare a report. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department documents 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498, or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Michell Clark, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Management 

and Chief Information Officer. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Acting Assistant Secretary 

for Management of the Department 

publishes a notice of an altered system 

of records. The following amendments 

are made to the Notice of New and 

Altered Systems of Records and 

Corrections published in the Federal 

Register on December 27, 1999 (64 FR 

72384–72408): 

1. On page 72404, first column, the 

numbering, ‘‘18–13–05,’’ is revised to 

read as follows: 18–05–18. 

2. On page 72404, first column, under 

the heading ‘‘SYSTEM LOCATION,’’ the 

paragraph is revised to read as follows: 

Aspen Systems Corporation, 2277 

Research Boulevard, Rockville, MD 

20850. 

3. On page 72405, first column, under 

the heading, ‘‘(6) Labor Organization 

Disclosure.’’ the paragraph is revised to 

read as follows: 

The Department may disclose records 

from this system of records to an 

arbitrator to resolve disputes under a 

negotiated grievance procedure or to 

officials of labor organizations 

recognized under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 

when relevant and necessary to their 

duties of exclusive representation. 

4. On page 72405, second column, 

‘‘STORAGE:,’’ ‘‘RETRIEVABILITY:,’’

and ‘‘SAFEGUARDS:’’ are revised to 

read as follows: 

Storage 

The records are retained in a 

computer database. 

Retrievability 

The records are retrieved by customer 

type (this is a categorical description of 

the customer such as school 

administrator, parent, teacher K–12, 

etc.), order date, the title of the 

requested product, and the region of the 

country from which the order was 

placed. 

Safeguards 

Records in the system will be 

maintained in a secure passwordprotected electronic system that will 

utilize security hardware and software 

to include: firewalls to block external 

access to the system, the required use of 

a unique user ID with personal 

identifiers, and the recording of all 

interactions with the system. A 

maximum of one trusted individual 

with a Department of Justice Civil 

clearance has system logon access. This 

clearance is based on a National Agency 

Checks with Written Inquiries and 

Credit (NACIC) review, equivalent to the 

Department’s moderate risk 5C 

clearance process. All physical access to 

the site of the Department’s contractor, 

where this system of records is 

maintained, is controlled and monitored 

by security personnel who check each 

individual entering the building for his 

or her employee or visitor badge. The 

ED PUBS system has been granted 

Certification and Full Accreditation in 

accordance with the Department’s 

Certification and Accreditation Program, 

and applicable Federal laws and 

policies. 

5. On page 72405, second column, 

under the heading, ‘‘SYSTEM 

MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:,’’ the 

paragraph is revised to read as follows: 

ED PUBS Contract Officer’s 

Representative & Program Manager/ 

Analyst, Office of Management, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., room 2E103, Washington, 

DC 20202. 

[FR Doc. 05–19071 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Agency Information Collection 

Extension 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 184 / Friday, September 23, 2005 / Notices 55819 

1Arkla Gathering Service Co., 67 FERC ¶61,257 

at 61,871 (1994), order on reh’g, 69 FERC ¶61,280 

(1994), reh’g denied, 70 FERC ¶ 61,079 (1995), 

reconsideration denied, 71 FERC ¶61,297 (1995) 

(collectively, Arkla), aff’d Conoco Inc. v. FERC, 90 

F.3d 536 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Conoco). 

2Williams Gas Processing Co., L.P. v. FERC, 373 

F.3d 1335 (2004) (Williams Gas Processing). 

3Williams Gas Processing, at 1342. 

4 Id. at 1342. 

5 Id. 

ACTION: Submission for Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) has submitted an information 

collection package to the OMB for 

extension under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The 

package requests a three-year extension 

of its Security, OMB Control Number 

1910–1800. This information collection 

package covers information necessary 

for DOE management to exercise 

management oversight and control over 

their contractors. The collections consist 

of information (1) for the nuclear 

materials control and accountability for 

DOE-owned and—leased facilities and 

DOE-owned nuclear materials at other 

facilities that are exempt from licensing 

by the NRC; (2) for the protection of 

classified information, special nuclear 

materials and other national security 

assets (DOE site self-assessments and 

site security plans); and (3) on DOE 

Federal and contractors traveling to 

foreign countries; for tracking and 

recording background information on 

foreign nationals having access to DOE 

facilities and information; and 

collection of Foreign Ownership, 

Control or Influence data from bidders 

on DOE contracts requiring personnel 

security clearances. 

DATES: Comments regarding this 

collection must be received on or before 

October 24, 2005. If you anticipate that 

you will be submitting comments, but 

find it difficult to do so within the 

period of time allowed by this notice, 

please advise the OMB Desk Officer of 

your intention to make a submission as 

soon as possible. The Desk Officer may 

be telephoned at 202–395–4650. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to: DOE Desk Officer, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 

735 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

Comments should also be addressed 

to: Sharon A. Evelin, Director, IM–11/ 

Germantown Bldg., U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Ave SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–1290, and to: 

Kathy Murphy, SP–1.22 Germantown 

Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 

19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, 

Maryland 20874–1290. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon A. Evelin and Kathy Murphy, at 

the addresses listed above in 

ADDRESSES. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

package contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910–

1800; (2) Package Title: Security (3) 

Purpose: for DOE management to 

exercise management oversight and 

control over their contractors; (4) 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

39,136; (5) Estimated Total Burden 

Hours: 249,955; (6) Number of 

Collections: The package contains 

fourteen (14) information and/or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Statutory Authority: Department of Energy 

Organization Act, Public Law 95–91, of 

August 4, 1977. 

Sharon A. Evelin, 

Director, Records Management Division, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–19038 Filed 9–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. PL05–10–000] 

Criteria for Reassertion of Jurisdiction 

Over the Gathering Services of Natural 

Gas Company Affiliates; Notice of 

Inquiry 

September 15, 2005. 

1. This order institutes a notice of 

inquiry to evaluate possible changes in 

the criteria set forth in Arkla Gathering 

Service Co.1 employed by the 

Commission in evaluating whether and 

under what circumstances the 

Commission may invoke its ‘‘in 

connection with’’ jurisdiction to guard 

against abusive practices by natural gas 

companies and their gathering affiliates. 

2. The Arkla test involves a 

determination that, as a result of the 

concerted action of a pipeline and its 

gathering affiliate, the Commission’s 

effective regulation of the pipeline is 

circumvented. In a recent decision,2 the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia found that the 

Commission had misapplied the criteria 

set forth in Arkla. Under Arkla, the 

Commission’s ability to reassert 

jurisdiction is limited to abuses directly 

related to the affiliate’s unique 

relationship with an interstate pipeline, 

such as tying gathering service to the 

pipeline’s jurisdictional transmission 

service or cross-subsidization between 

the affiliate’s gathering rates and the 

pipeline’s transmission rates. The court 

stated that Arkla permits a reassertion of 

jurisdiction in circumstances ‘‘limited 

to’’ abuses ‘‘directly related to the 

affiliate’s unique relationship with an 

interstate pipeline,’’ such as ‘‘tying 

gathering service to the pipeline’s 

jurisdictional transmission service,’’ or 

‘‘cross-subsidization between the 

affiliate’s gathering rates and the 

pipeline’s transmission rates.’’ 3 The 

court found that, in the case before it, 

the gathering affiliate’s affiliation with 

the pipeline was ‘‘utterly irrelevant to 

its ability to charge high rates, or to 

impose onerous conditions for gathering 

service.’’ 4 Instead, the affiliate ‘‘could 

do these things for one reason only ‘‘

because it was a recently deregulated 

monopolist in the North Padre gathering 

market.’’ 5 Accordingly, the court held 

that the Commission had not met its 

own test under Arkla for reassertion of 

jurisdiction and vacated and remanded 

the Commission’s orders. 

3. The Commission is interested in 

reevaluating both its legal authority to 

reassert jurisdiction and the policy 

considerations in deciding whether to 

do so. To assist this reevaluation of the 

Arkla test, the Commission is seeking 

comment on the following questions: 

1. Is there an inherent anticompetitive issue when pipelines spindown gathering facilities to affiliates or 

are concerns about the behavior of 

affiliated gatherers unique to certain 

specific pipeline/affiliate relationships, 

such as those articulated by Shell in its 

request for rehearing in the Shell v. 

Transco proceeding in Docket No. 

RP02–99–010? 

2. Once a pipeline has spun-down its 

gathering services into an affiliated 

company, is it common for the affiliated 

gatherer to seek higher rates for its 

gathering services than the rates charged 

by the pipeline for those services prior 

to the spin-down? 

a. How do the rates of non-affiliated 

gatherers compare to the rates of 

affiliated gatherers? 

b. Have the rates charged by affiliated 

gatherers had an impact on well shutins? 

3. What factors are relevant in 

determining whether a gathering 

affiliate is separate from its pipeline 

affiliate and independent from its 

pipeline affiliate in performing its 

gathering functions? 

4. Must a gathering affiliate be 

physically separate and separately 

staffed in order to be independent of its 

pipeline affiliate? 

5. Because the basis of initially 

disclaiming NGA section 4 and 5 ‘‘in