The zircon (U-Th)/He (ZHe) system with a typical closure temperature of ~160-200°C^*1, but lower for higher radiation damaged grains^*2, offers the potential for evaluating thermal histories in the uppermost ~10 km of the crust. ZHe thermochronometry has been applied to different geological settings in order to estimate tectonics, uplift and denudation, basin evolution, etc.^*3, which can also contribute to evaluating long-term tectonic stabilities for the geologic disposal project. So far, the effectivity of ZHe thermochronology has been verified, however improved age standards for the method are required. To date, the method has conventionally employed zircon fission-track age standards such as the Fish Canyon Tuff (FCT) zircon^*4. ZHe grain ages are sometimes over-dispersed owing to factors such as zoning of parent nuclei, radiation damage, grain size and He-bearing inclusions^*2,5. Considerable parent isotope zonation was reported in some FCT crystals^*6, inviting a search for alternative potential ZHe standards^*7,8,9. These works reported robust ZHe data with little age dispersion because of homogeneous U-Th distribution in zircon megacrysts, making them possible reference material candidates. However, a practical issue remains because ZHe analyses of unknown samples are carried out grain-by-grain as opposed to analyzing large pieces of a single grain. We have attempted to assess suitable zircon samples as ZHe age standards by using rapid cooling rock samples of relatively young (<100 Ma) age. This is because such rock samples are expected to empirically exhibit simple thermal histories and little radiation damage. Therefore, age dispersion caused by radiation damage can be relatively small. In order to reassess previous data obtained by Tagami et al. (2003)^*10, ZHe analyses of the Pliocene Utaosa rhyolite (TRG-04 and -07) and the Miocene Buluk Tuff have been carried out. In addition, OD-3 zircon^*11, a zircon U-Pb age standard, was also analyzed. In this presentation, preliminary ZHe age data from these samples will be presented and compared to evaluate their suitability as ZHe reference materials e.g., FCT. References 1: Reiners et al. (2004), Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 68, p. 1857–1887 2: Guenthner et al. (2013), Am. J. Sci., 313, p. 145–198 3: Ault et al. (2019), Tectonics, 38, p. 3705–3739 4: Gleadow et al. (2015), Earth Planet Sci. Lett., 424, p. 95–108 5: Danišík et al. (2017), Sci. Adv., 3, p. 1–9 6: Dobson et al. (2008), Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 72, p4745–4755 7: Li et al. (2017), Geostand. Geoanal. Res., 41, p. 359–365 8: Yu et al. (2020), Geostand. Geoanal. Res., 44, p. 763–783 9: Kirkland et al. (2020), Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 274, p. 1–19 10:Tagami et al. (2003), Earth Planet Sci. Lett., 207, p. 57–67 11:Iwano et al. (2013), Isl. Arc, 22, p. 382–394 Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) of Japan.