Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 69359 

taken off the store shelf, by responding 

to complaints from product users, and 

by ‘‘recalling’’ products that they find 

through such testing or complaints to 

pose safety concerns). 

OSHA has reviewed information and 

documents pertaining to SDoC and met 

with ITIC and a few interested parties 

who provided some input on SDoC and 

their view of its advantages and 

disadvantages. Documents we have 

gathered to date, including the ITIC 

proposal, are available at the OSHA 

Docket Office. In general, these 

documents are available through the 

OSHA Web site at http:// 

dockets.osha.gov. 

After reviewing ITIC’s proposal, 

OSHA has decided that it needs to learn 

more about SDoC and the assurances 

behind them. Accordingly, this request 

is designed to obtain that information. 

III. Questions on Which Comment Is 

Requested 

OSHA is seeking information, data, 

and comment on SDoC generally, and 

the ITIC proposal specifically. OSHA is 

providing broad questions below to 

provide a framework for the public to 

respond to this RFI. However, you can 

provide comment or information on any 

aspect of the broad areas mentioned 

below and not just limit your answers 

to the specific questions posed. In 

responding to these questions, please 

explain the reasons supporting your 

views, and identify and provide relevant 

information on which you rely, 

including data, studies, articles, and 

other materials. Respondents are 

encouraged to address any aspect of the 

issue on which they believe they can 

contribute. Please briefly identify your 

background or qualification on the topic 

on which you are responding, where 

relevant. 

SDoC Process 

Note: Questions 1 through 7 pertain to 

regulatory or product approval systems that 

currently allow SDoCs. 

1. What quality controls and 

procedures do equipment 

manufacturers/suppliers now follow to 

effectively perform, document, and 

issue SDoCs for their products? 

2. What kinds of problems do product 

manufacturers and product users now 

encounter with their SDoCs and how are 

they resolved or addressed? 

3. What kinds of products are now 

approved or not approved using SDoCs, 

and why? 

4. Is there any reduction in the ‘‘timeto-market’’ for products? If so, how 

much of a reduction is there, how much 

is due to improvements in product 

safety, and what is the savings in costs 

to the manufacturer if SDoC is used 

instead of a third-party approval? 

5. Do third-party product certifiers 

currently use SDoCs in approving 

products or play a role in issuing 

SDoCs, and if so how? 

6. What kinds of testing and testing 

capabilities are required for using 

SDoCs? 

7. Have there been any incidents 

involving ‘‘unapproved’’ IT equipment, 

or IT equipment approved through 

SDoC, creating hazards? 

SDoC Proposal 

8. What has changed with respect to 

IT equipment in the 17 years since 

OSHA adopted the NRTL Program that 

could warrant a reconsideration of the 

third-party testing criterion? 

9. Should OSHA consider allowing 

SDoC in the approval process for IT 

equipment, and if so, to what extent? If 

allowed, what restrictions, safeguards, 

or other requirements would be 

necessary to provide employers, 

employees, and OSHA with equivalent 

assurances of safety to that currently 

provided by NRTL testing and 

certification? Should OSHA require 

manufacturers performing SDoCs to 

meet all the requirements of an NRTL 

except independence? How, 

specifically, should OSHA evaluate the 

effects on worker safety of SDoCs versus 

NRTL approvals? 

10. If OSHA were to adopt SDoC, 

should OSHA limit its use to computers, 

computer peripherals, and 

telecommunications equipment only, as 

suggested by ITIC, or to all IT 

equipment, as defined by the relevant 

U.S. test standard, or restrict its use to 

low voltage (for example, 50 volts or 

less) IT equipment or components? In 

the alternative, should OSHA allow its 

use for other types of equipment? If so, 

what criteria, requirements, or data 

should OSHA use to determine the 

types of products or components 

eligible for SDoCs? What types of 

equipment would not be suitable for 

SDoC? 

11. What advantages or benefit would 

workers, employers, or OSHA derive if 

OSHA were to allow SDoC? What 

disadvantages or detriments would 

result? What other groups or parties 

would consider it beneficial or 

damaging, and how? 

12. If allowed, should OSHA limit the 

use of SDoCs to particular kinds of 

manufacturers and, if so, what would be 

the selection criteria? 

13. If OSHA were to adopt some form 

of SDoC, what kind of mechanisms 

would be necessary to ensure effective 

monitoring of manufacturers and 

products, and to handle complaints and 

product recalls? 

14. Are there ways in which OSHA 

could incorporate the SDoC into its 

current process of NRTL approvals? 

General Comments on SDoCs 

OSHA solicits comment on any other 

related issues or topics that may assist 

in the evaluation of SDoCs and whether 

they can be used in a way that 

maintains or improves the NRTL 

approval process along with the safety 

of equipment. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under the 

direction of Jonathan L. Snare, Acting 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210. It is issued pursuant to sections 

4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 5–2002 (67 FR 

65008), and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of 

October, 2005. 

Jonathan L. Snare, 

Acting Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–22630 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meeting of the Board of 

Directors 

TIME AND DATE: The Board of Directors 

of the Legal Services Corporation will 

meet on November 28, 2005 via 

conference call. The meeting will begin 

at 12 p.m. (e.s.t.), and continue until 

conclusion of the Board’s agenda. 

LOCATION: 3333 K Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20007, 3rd Floor 

Conference Room. 

STATUS OF MEETING: OPEN. Directors 

will participate by telephone conference 

in such a manner as to enable interested 

members of the public to hear and 

identify all persons participating in the 

meeting. Members of the public may 

observe the meeting by joining 

participating staff at the location 

indicated above. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Approval of the agenda. 

2. Consider and act on Board of 

Directors’ response to the Inspector 

General’s Semiannual Report to 

Congress for the period of October 1, 

2004 through March 31, 2005. 

3. Consider and act on other business. 

4. Public comment. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: 

Patricia Batie, Manager of Board 

Operations, at (202) 295–1500. 

69360 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting 

notices will be made available in 

alternate formats to accommodate visual 

and hearing impairments. Individuals 

who have a disability and need an 

accommodation to attend the meeting 

may notify Patricia Batie at (202) 295–

1500. 

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President for Legal Affairs, General 

Counsel & Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–22659 Filed 11–9–05; 4:29 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Advisory Committee on the Electronic 

Records Archives; Notice of Meeting 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) announces a 

meeting of the Advisory Committee on 

the Electronic Records Archives 

(ACERA). The committee serves as a 

deliberative body to advise the Archivist 

of the United States on technical, 

mission, and service issues related to 

the Electronic Records Archives (ERA). 

This includes, but is not limited to, 

advising and making recommendations 

to the Archivist on issues related to the 

development, implementation, and use 

of the ERA system. 

Date of Meeting: November 30, 2005. 

Time of Meeting: 9 a.m.–4 p.m. 

Place of Meeting: 700 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20408–

0001. 

This meeting will be open to the 

public. However, due to space 

limitations and access procedures, the 

name and telephone number of 

individuals planning to attend must be 

submitted to the Electronic Records 

Archives Program at 

era.program@nara.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

• Committee organization and rules. 

• Review of NARA’s mission and 

activities in the electronic records arena. 

• Development of a plan of action for 

the committee. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lewis Bellardo, Deputy Archivist of the 

United States/Chief of Staff; (301) 837–

1600. 

Mary Ann Hadyka, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–22579 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–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 and Times: December 8, 2005; 7:45 

a.m.–8 p.m. (open: 8:15–11:45, 12:45–3:30, 

5–6; closed: 3:30–5, 6–8). 

December 9, 2005; 8 a.m.–3 p.m. (open 9–

9:45). 

Place: Columbia University, New York, 

NY. 

Type of Meeting: Part open. 

Contact Person: Dr. Maija M. Kukla, 

Program Director, Materials Research Science 

and Engineering Centers, Division of 

Materials Research, Room 1065, National 

Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 

Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292–

4940. 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and 

recommendations concerning progress of 

Materials Research Science and Engineering 

Center. 

Agenda: December 8, 2005—Closed to brief 

site visit panel. 

December 9, 2005—Open for Directors 

overview of Materials Research Science and 

Engineering Center and presentations. Closed 

to review and evaluate progress of Materials 

Research Science and Engineering Center. 

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: November 8, 2005. 

Susanne Bolton, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–22635 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–445 and 50–446] 

TXU Generation Company, LP; 

Biweekly Notice; Notice of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses; Correction 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Issuance; Correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects a 

notice appearing in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61667), that 

incorrectly issued Amendment No. 120 

for Units 1 and 2. The correct 

amendment No. is 122. This action is 

necessary to correct the incorrect 

amendment numbers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mohan C. Thadani, PM, Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulation Commission, 

Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone 

(301) 415–1476, e-mail: mct@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 

61667, in the first column, in the first 

complete notice, sixteenth line, it is 

corrected to read from ‘‘Amendment 

Nos. 120 and 120’’ to ‘‘Amendment Nos. 

122 and 122’’. 

Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day 

of November 2005. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mohan C. Thadani, 

Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project 

Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. 

[FR Doc. E5–6273 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–271] 

License No. Dpr-28; Entergy Nuclear 

Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy 

Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of 

Issuance of Director’s Decision Under 

10 CFR 2.206 

Notice is hereby given that the 

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or Commission) has 

issued a Director’s Decision with regard 

to a Petition dated December 7, 2004, 

filed pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 

2.206 by Mr. Raymond Shadis, 

hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘Petitioner.’’ The Petition concerns the 

operation of the Vermont Yankee