60496 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 

Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC); 

1535 Command Drive, EE Wing, 3d Fl.; 

Andrews AFB, MD 20762–7002. 

Bruno Leuyer, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–20778 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–05–P 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 

Proposed Amendment to the Basin 

Regulations—Water Supply Charges 

and Comprehensive Plan Relating to 

Certificates of Entitlement 

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin 

Commission. 

SUMMARY: The Delaware River Basin 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘DRBC’’) will hold a public hearing to 

receive comments on proposed 

amendments to the Commission’s Basin 

Regulations—Water Supply Charges and 

Comprehensive Plan concerning 

certificates of entitlement. No changes 

in the substance or administration of the 

rule are proposed. The purpose of the 

proposed amendments is to clarify the 

language of the rule to conform to the 

Commission’s past decisions and 

current practices in order to provide 

better notice to users as to how the 

Commission is implementing its 

entitlements program and to avoid 

future controversy. 

Background. The Delaware River 

Basin Compact (‘‘Compact’’), the 1961 

statute that created the DRBC and 

defined its powers, authorizes the 

Commission to charge for the use of 

facilities that it may own or operate and 

for products and services rendered 

thereby. Compact, § 3.7. Congress 

limited this authority by providing that 

the Commission cannot charge for water 

withdrawals or diversions that could 

lawfully have been made without charge 

as of the effective date of the Compact. 

Id., § 15.1(b). 

By Resolution No. 64–16A in 1964 the 

Commission authorized a water 

charging program. It provided for the 

revenues generated by the program to be 

used for repayment of the nonfederal 

share of the investment cost of water 

supply storage facilities associated with 

federal projects within the Basin. In 

anticipation of Commission investment 

in storage at the Beltzville Lake and 

Blue Marsh Reservoir projects in 

Pennsylvania, the Commission by 

Resolution No. 1971–4 defined, among 

other things, the means by which it 

would establish water charging rates. 

Consistent with Section 15.1(b) of the 

Compact, Resolution No. 1971–4 

provided that charges would be 

applicable only to the amount of water 

withdrawn in excess of the amount 

taken or legally entitled to be taken by 

an entity during the preceding year. By 

Resolution No. 74–6, the Commission 

instituted a system of water supply 

charges for surface water withdrawals 

within the Basin. That resolution 

provided for the issuance of certificates 

of entitlement to then-current water 

users, establishing the amount of water 

each could lawfully take from the 

surface waters of the Basin without 

charge, consistent with Section 15.1(b) 

of the Compact. The resolution provided 

that a certificate of entitlement was not 

transferable, except under limited 

circumstances set forth in enumerated 

exceptions. 

Because entitlements treat users that 

commenced water withdrawals before 

the enactment of the Compact more 

favorably than users who commenced 

water withdrawals later, even though all 

users benefit equally from the facilities 

financed by water supply charges, 

courts and the Commission have 

emphasized the need to eliminate 

entitlements over time. Both the 

Commission and the courts have 

construed narrowly the exceptions to 

the rule that entitlements are not 

transferable, and the Commission has in 

its decisions consistently held that 

changes in ownership or control would 

extinguish a certificate. However, the 

language of the regulations has never 

explicitly defined ‘‘changes in 

ownership or control.’’ As a 

consequence, in the decisions that the 

Commission has been asked to make in 

its adjudicatory capacity and that the 

courts have subsequently been asked to 

decide, the matter of what constitutes a 

change of ownership or control has been 

controversial. 

In 1994, in response to a ruling by the 

Third Circuit in Texaco Refining and 

Marketing, Inc. v. DRBC, 824 F. Supp. 

500 (D.Del. 1993), aff’d., No. 93–7475 

(3d Cir. June 24, 1994) (per curiam), the 

Commission adopted Resolution No. 

94–20. That resolution incorporated an 

explicit ‘‘ownership and/or control’’ test 

and eliminated the merger exception 

included in the Commission’s 

regulations at the time. In addition, the 

exception for corporate reorganizations 

embodied in Section 5.2.1.F.2 of the 

Water Charging Regulations was 

amended to apply only when the 

reorganization ‘‘does not affect 

ownership and/or control.’’

In spite of the 1994 amendment, some 

members of the Basin community have 

continued to interpret the language of 

the rule in a manner contrary to the 

Commission’s consistent interpretation. 

To avoid further controversy, the 

Commission proposes a more thorough 

revision of the language, intended to 

remove any ambiguity. 

Key Provisions. In addition to defining 

‘‘change in ownership and/or control’’

with much greater specificity, the 

proposed revisions also make clear that 

a merger at any tier in a corporate 

organization will extinguish a certificate 

held by a subsidiary in the same way as 

if the merger had occurred at the 

subsidiary level. Although the 

Commission has interpreted its rule this 

way in the past, the rules have never 

been explicit on this point. 

The proposed amendments preserve 

and clarify the corporate reorganization 

exception contained in the current 

regulation. The Commission 

traditionally has not extinguished an 

entitlement in the case of an internal 

reorganization, and it does not propose 

a change in this practice. 

The proposed amendments also 

preserve the existing exception for 

agricultural uses. Historically, 

agriculture has been treated differently 

than other uses. For purposes other than 

agriculture, an entitlement is issued to 

a user and would not be transferable to 

a different user, even if the use 

remained the same. In the case of 

agriculture, however, an entitlement 

effectively runs with the land, as long as 

the land remains in agriculture. The 

proposed amendments provide that an 

entitlement can be reissued to the 

successor of a holder of a certificate 

issued for agricultural water use, 

provided that the successor 

demonstrates that the water will 

continue to be used for agricultural 

irrigation purposes. 

DATES: The public hearing will be held 

on Wednesday, December 7, 2005 at 

approximately 2:30 p.m. as part of the 

Commission’s regularly scheduled 

business meeting. The time is 

approximate because the Commission 

will conduct hearings on several 

dockets (project approvals) beforehand, 

beginning at approximately 1:30 p.m. 

The hearing will continue until all those 

who wish to testify are afforded an 

opportunity to do so. In the event that 

all those who wish to testify cannot be 

heard on December 7, the hearing will 

be continued at a date, time and 

location to be announced by the 

Commission Chair that day. Persons 

wishing to testify at the hearing are 

asked to register in advance with the 

Commission Secretary by phoning 609–

883–9500, extension 224. Written 

comments will be accepted through 

Tuesday, January 10, 2006. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 60497 

ADDRESSES: The text of the proposed 

amendment and the text of the current 

regulation are posted on the 

Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.drbc.net. The public hearing will 

be held in the Goddard Room at the 

Commission’s office building, located at 

25 State Police Drive in West Trenton, 

New Jersey. Directions to the 

Commission’s office building are also 

posted on the Commission’s Web site. 

Written comments should be addressed 

to the Commission Secretary as follows: 

by e-mail to 

paula.schmitt@drbc.state.nj.us; by fax to 

the Commission Secretary—609–883–

9522; by U.S. Mail to the Commission 

Secretary, DRBC, P.O. Box 7360, West 

Trenton, NJ 08628–0360; or by 

overnight mail to the Commission 

Secretary, DRBC, 25 State Police Drive, 

West Trenton, NJ 08628–0360. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please contact Commission Secretary 

Pamela Bush, 609–883–9500 x203, with 

questions about the proposed rule or the 

rulemaking process. 

Dated: October 12, 2005. 

Pamela M. Bush, 

Commission Secretary and Assistant General 

Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–20789 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 

invites comments on the submission for 

OMB review as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

November 17, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395–6974. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Director, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of the Chief Information 

Officer, publishes that notice containing 

proposed information collection 

requests prior to submission of these 

requests to OMB. Each proposed 

information collection, grouped by 

office, contains the following: (1) Type 

of review requested, e.g. new, revision, 

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) 

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) 

Description of the need for, and 

proposed use of, the information; (5) 

Respondents and frequency of 

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or 

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites 

public comment. 

Dated: October 12, 2005. 

Jeanne Van Vlandren, 

Director, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

Federal Student Aid 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Application for Approval to 

Participate in Federal Student Financial 

Aid Programs. 

Frequency: Prior to Expiration of 

Eligibility. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 2,970. 

Burden Hours: 20,830. 

Abstract: The Higher Education Act of 

1965 (HEA), as amended requires 

postsecondary institutions to complete 

and submit this application as a 

condition of eligibility for any of the 

Title IV student financial assistance 

programs and for the other 

postsecondary programs authorize by 

the HEA. The institution must submit 

the form (1) Initially when it first seeks 

to become eligible for the Title IV 

programs; (2) when its program 

participation agreement expires 

(recertification); (3) when it changes 

ownership, merges, or changes from 

structure, (4) to be reinstated to 

participate in the Title IV programs, (5) 

to notify the Department when it makes 

certain changes, e.g. name or address; 

and (5) if it wishes to have a new 

program (outside its current scope) or 

new location approved for Title IV 

purposes. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 2839. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments ‘‘ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20202–4700. Requests 

may also be electronically mailed to the 

Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or 

faxed to 202–245–6623. Please specify 

the complete title of the information 

collection when making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be directed to Joseph Schubart at 

his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339. 

[FR Doc. 05–20808 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer 

invites comments on the submission for 

OMB review as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before 

November 17, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer, 

Department of Education, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395–6974. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its