Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 60495 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Jean A. Webb, (202) 418–5100. 

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–20880 Filed 10–14–05; 9:44 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Science and Technology Reinvention 

Laboratory Personnel Management 

Demonstration Project, Department of 

the Air Force, Air Force Research 

Laboratory (AFRL) 

AGENCY: Department of Defense; Office 

of the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy). 

ACTION: Notice of amendment of the 

demonstration project plan. 

SUMMARY: The National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, 

as amended by section 1114 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001, authorizes the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct 

personnel demonstration projects at 

Department of Defense (DoD) 

laboratories designated as Science and 

Technology (S&T) Reinvention 

Laboratories. The above-cited legislation 

authorizes DoD to conduct 

demonstration projects that experiment 

with new and different personnel 

management concepts to determine 

whether such changes in personnel 

policy or procedures would result in 

improved Federal personnel 

management. 

This amendment revises the Air Force 

Research Laboratory (AFRL) 

demonstration project plan by changing 

from 180 days to 90 calendar days the 

amount of time required to be assessed 

under the Contribution-based 

Compensation System (CCS). 

DATES: This amendment to the 

demonstration project may be 

implemented beginning on the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

AFRL: Ms. Michelle Williams, AFRL/ 

DPL, 1981 Monahan Way, WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio 45433–5209. DoD: 

Ms. Patricia M. Stewart, CPMS–AF, 

1400 Key Boulevard, Suite B–200, 

Arlington, VA 22209–5144. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Background 

The final plan was published in the 

Federal Register for the S&T 

Reinvention Laboratory personnel 

Management Demonstration Project at 

AFRL (Wednesday, November 27, 1996, 

Volume 61, Number 230, Part V, page 

60400). An amendment to the final plan 

was published in the Federal Register 

as follows: To clarify which employees 

are subject to the extended probationary 

period; provide the contribution-based 

compensation system (CCS) bonus to 

eligible employees subject to the GS–15, 

step 10 pay cap; and change the name 

of broadband level descriptor 

‘‘Cooperation and Supervision’’ and 

CCS Factor 6 ‘‘Cooperation and 

Supervision’’ to ‘‘Teamwork and 

Leadership’’ (Friday, January 21, 2000, 

Volume 65, Number 14, Part I, page 

3498). 

This demonstration project involves 

simplified job classification, two types 

of appointment authorities, an extended 

probationary period, pay banding, and 

CCS. 

2. Overview 

This amendment changes from 180 to 

90 calendar days the amount of time 

required to be assessed under CCS. 

Experience has revealed that 180 days is 

unduly long and unnecessary for 

effective employee assessments under 

CCS. 

I. Executive Summary 

The Department of the Air Force 

established the AFRL personnel 

demonstration project to be generally 

similar to the system in use at the 

Department of the Navy personnel 

demonstration project known as China 

Lake. The AFRL demonstration project 

was built upon the concepts of a 

contribution-based compensation 

system, two appointing authorities, 

extended probationary period, 

simplified classification procedures 

delegated to the AFRL Commander, and 

pay banding. 

II. Introduction 

A. Purpose 

The AFRL demonstration project 

provides managers, at the lowest 

practical level, the authority and 

flexibility needed to achieve a quality 

laboratory and quality products. the 

purpose of this amendment is to change 

the time an employee must be covered 

under the demonstration project from 

180 to 90 calendar days in order to be 

assessed under CCS. Other basic 

provisions of the approved AFRL 

project plan are unchanged. 

B. Employee Notification and Collective 

Bargaining Requirements 

Employees affected by this 

amendment will be provided a copy of 

this notice. Participating organizations 

must fulfill any collective bargaining 

obligations to unions that represent 

employees covered by the 

demonstration. 

III. Personnel System Changes 

The AFRL demonstration project plan 

is amended as follows: Change section 

III.D.3., The CCS Assessment Process, 

(61 FR 60414) paragraph 5, second 

sentence to read: ‘‘If on October 1, the 

employee has served under CCS for less 

than 90 calendar days during the annual 

assessment cycle, the supervisor will 

wait for the subsequent annual cycle to 

assess the employee. Periods of 

approved, paid leave will be counted 

toward the 90-day time period.’’

Dated: October 12, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 05–20800 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

Active Duty Service Determinations for 

Civilian or Contractual Groups 

On September 26, 2005, the Secretary 

of the Air Force, acting as Executive 

Agent of the Secretary of Defense, 

determined that the service of the group 

known as ‘‘The U.S. and Foreign 

Civilian Employees of CAT, Inc., Who 

Were Flight Crew Personnel (U.S. Pilots, 

Co-Pilots, Navigators, Flight Mechanics, 

and Air Freight Specialists) and 

Aviation Ground Support Personnel 

(U.S. Maintenance Supervisors, 

Operations Managers, and Flight 

Information Center Personnel) and 

Conducted Paramilitary Operations in 

Korea, French Indochina, Tibet and 

Indonesia From 1950 Through 1959; 

and U.S. and Foreign Civilian 

Employees of Air America Who Were 

Flight Crew Personnel and Ground 

Support Personnel, as Described, and 

Conducted Paramilitary Operations in 

Laos from 1961 Through 1974, When 

the War in Laos Ended; and U.S. and 

Foreign Civilian Employees of Air 

America Who Were Flight Crew 

Personnel and Ground Support 

Personnel, as Described, and Conducted 

Paramilitary Operations in Vietnam 

From 1964 Through 1975, When Saigon 

Was Evacuated and Air America Flight 

Operations Ceased’’ shall not be 

considered ‘‘active duty’’ for purposes 

of all laws administered by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James D. Johnston at the Secretary of the 

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.