This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the November 22, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 70399), GIPSA announced the designation of Kankakee to provide official inspection services under the Act, effective January 1, 2003, and ending December 31, 2005. Subsequently, Kankakee asked GIPSA to amend their designation to include official weighing services. Section 7A(c)(2) of the Act authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate authority to perform official weighing to an agency providing official inspection services within a specified geographic area, if such agency is qualified under Section 7(f)(1)(A) of the Act. GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in Section 7(f)(1)(A) of the Act, and determined that Kankakee is qualified to provide official weighing services in their currently assigned geographic area.

Effective June 25, 2004, and terminating December 31, 2005 (the end of Kankakee's designation to provide official inspection services), Kankakee's present designation is amended to include Class X or Class Y weighing within their assigned geographic area, as specified in the June 3, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 38249). Official services may be obtained by contacting Kankakee at 815-365-2268.

On March 23, 2004, the Department initiated antidumping duty investigations of imports of certain circular welded carbon quality line pipe from Mexico, the Republic of Korea (Korea), and the People's Republic of China (China). See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Mexico, the Republic of Korea, and the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 16521 (March 30, 2004). Section 733(b) of the Act requires the Department to make a preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of initiation. The preliminary determinations in these investigations are currently due not later than August 10, 2004.

Under section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department can extend the period for reaching a preliminary determination until not later than the 190th day after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation if the administering authority concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating and determines that: (i) the case is extraordinarily complicated by reason of (I) the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated or adjustments to be considered; (II) the novelty of the issues presented; or (III) the number of firms whose activities must be investigated; and (ii) additional time is necessary to make the preliminary determination.

The parties concerned are cooperating in these investigations. Additional time is necessary, however, to complete the preliminary determinations for Mexico and Korea due to

(1) the number and complexity of the transactions to be investigated and adjustments to be considered, and (2) certain affiliation issues.

Moreover, with respect to the Mexican and both Korean respondents, on July 9, 2004, the Department received from American Steel Pipe Division of ACIPC, IPSCO Tubulars Inc., Lone Star Steel Company, Maverick Tube Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, and Stupp Corporation, petitioners in these investigations, company-specific allegations that sales were made below the cost of production during the period of investigation. We are currently reviewing these allegations. Therefore, for both investigations, additional time is required to review the issues and the cost information for purposes of the preliminary determinations.

For the reasons identified above, we are postponing the preliminary determinations under Section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act by 50 days, to no later than September 29, 2004. The deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations. This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

Federal regulations at 50 CFR 229.34 limit the number of nets that can be used in certain fisheries in the mid-Atlantic that appear to be most closely linked with accidental catch of harbor porpoises. The fishermen in these fisheries must obtain and attach numbered tags for their nets. Because the number of tags per vessel is capped, the tagging program helps to limit the number of nets in use and helps NOAA identify the number in use.

Requests for tags are submitted to NOAA on a paper form.

OMB Number: 0648-0357.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations. individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 minute to attach a tag to a net and 2 minutes to request tags.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 22.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $400.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

The MBNMS Advisory Council was established in March 1994 to assure continued public participation in the management of the Sanctuary. Since its establishment, the Advisory Council has played a vital role in decisions affecting the Sanctuary along the central California coast.

The Advisory Council's twenty voting members represent a variety of local user groups, as well as the general public, plus seven local, state and Federal governmental jurisdictions. In addition, the respective managers or superintendents for the four California National Marine Sanctuaries (Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary) and the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve sit as non-voting members.

Four working groups support the Advisory Council: The Research Activity Panel (“RAP”) chaired by the Research Representative, the Sanctuary Education Panel (“SEP”) chaired by the Education Representative, the Conservation Working Group (“CWG”) chaired by the Conservation Representative, and the Business and Tourism Activity Panel (“BTAP”) chaired by the Business/Industry Representative, each dealing with matters concerning research, education, conservation and human use. The working groups are composed of experts from the appropriate fields of interest and meet monthly, or bi-monthly, serving as invaluable advisors to the Advisory Council and the Sanctuary Superintendent.

The Advisory Council represents the coordination link between the Sanctuary and the state and Federal management agencies, user groups, researchers, educators, policy makers, and other various groups that help to focus efforts and attention on the central California coastal and marine ecosystems.

The Advisory Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Superintendent and is instrumental in helping develop policies, program goals, and identify education, outreach, research, long-term monitoring, resource protection, and revenue enhancement priorities. The Advisory Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Superintendent by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Superintendent in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary Program within the context of California's marine programs and policies.

Agenda items for the Council's committees and the Council itself are:

On Tuesday, August 10, the Executive Committee will meet from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and the Council will convene at 10 a.m., and meet from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. On Wednesday, August 11, new and reappointed members will be sworn into office from 8 a.m. to 8:10 a.m. The Council will meet jointly with the ASMFC's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Boards from 8:10 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. On Thursday, August 12, the Ecosystems Committee will meet from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and the Council will meet from 9:30 a.m. until approximately 2 p.m.

On Tuesday, August 10, the Executive Committee will review functional responsibilities of the Council; also will review and discuss Council relationships with NMFS, NOAA, DOC and U.S. Congress vis-a-vis “teamwork and cooperation;” the Council will receive a report of the 39th Stock Assessment Review Committee and review summary results of this report; the Council and ASMFC's Bluefish Board will review the Bluefish Monitoring Committee's recommendations regarding 2005 harvest level and associated management measures, and recommend the 2005 harvest level and associated management measures.

On Wednesday, August 11, the Council and ASMFC's Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Boards will review Monitoring Committee recommendations regarding the 2005, 2005 and 2006, or 2005, 2006, and 2007 harvest levels and commercial management measures, and recommend the 2005, 2005 and 2006, or 2005, 2006, and 2007 harvest levels and commercial management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass.

On Thursday, August 12, the Ecosystems Committee will review the Council's grant Statement of Work (SOW) and develop additional options to be included in the proposed program. The Council will also receive and discuss committee and organizational reports including the Highly Migratory Species, the Trawl Survey Committee's report on items discussed at its meeting held July 7 and 8 in Philadelphia, the Executive Committee, Ecosystems Committee, New England Council's report regarding possible actions on herring, groundfish, monkfish, red crab, scallops, skates and whiting; the South Atlantic Council's report; and act on any new and/or continuing business.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final actions to address such emergencies.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Debbie Donnangelo at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

On March 4, 2004, notice was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 10213) that requests for enhancement permits to take shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named organizations. The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The Maritime Aquarium in Norwalk and the Virginia Living Museum are authorized to receive and use 50 individual, captive-bred, non-releaseable shortnose sturgeon for educational display exhibits. These projects of displaying endangered cultured shortnose sturgeon respond directly to a recommendation of the NMFS recovery outline for this species. In addition, the facilities will formulate public education programs and exhibits to increase awareness of the shortnose sturgeon and its status. These projects will educate the public on shortnose sturgeon life history and the reason for its declining numbers.

Issuance of these permits, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permits (1) were applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of the permits, and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Price, performance, and/or implementation of socio-economic policies may be affected by make-or-buy decisions under certain Government prime contracts. Accordingly, FAR 15.407-2, Make-or-Buy Programs (i) Sets forth circumstances under which a Government contractor must submit for approval by the contracting officer a make-or-buy program, i.e., a written plan identifying major items to be produced or work efforts to be performed in the prime contractor's facilities and those to be subcontracted;

(ii) Provides guidance to contracting officers concerning the review and approval of the make-or-buy programs; and

(iii) Prescribes the contract clause at FAR 52.215-9, Changes or Additions to Make-or-Buy Programs, which specifies the circumstances under which the contractor is required to submit for the contracting officer's advance approval a notification and justification of any proposed change in the approved make-or-buy program.

The information is used to assure the lowest overall cost to the Government for required supplies and services.

Respondents: 150.

Responses Per Respondent: 3.

Total Responses: 450.

Hours Per Response: 8.

Total Burden Hours: 3,600.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VR), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0078, Make-or-Buy Program, in all correspondence.

Entities doing business with the Government must identify those persons who have the authority to bind the principal. This information is needed to ensure that Government contracts are legal and binding. The information is used by the contracting officer to ensure that authorized persons sign contracts.

Respondents: 4,800.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses : 4,800

Hours Per Response: .017.

Total Burden Hours: 82.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0033, Contractor's Signature Authority, in all correspondence.

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 Acting Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, 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.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Reading First Impact Study.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 75,347.

  Burden Hours: 110,320.

Abstract: The Reading First Impact Study is a five-year evaluation of the effectiveness of the Reading First Program. This study will estimate the impact of the program on student reading achievement through the use of a regression discontinuity design that compares Reading First schools with non-Reading First schools.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2556. 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 202-245-6621. 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 Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@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.

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 Acting Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, 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.

Type of Review: New.

Title: The Professional Development Impact Study—Participating District and School Screening Protocols.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 179.

  Burden Hours: 179.

Abstract: The current OMB package requests clearance for the instruments to be used in screening districts and schools for eligibility to participate in the Professional Development Impact Study. To be eligible for the full study, districts and schools must meet a list of criteria that are designed to ensure that the study sample is relevant to the purposes of the study (e.g., are implementing one of two scientifically based reading programs of interest in the study) and are relevant to current legislation such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (e.g., districts and schools serve high poverty students).

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2557. 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 202-245-6621. 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 Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@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.

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 Acting Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, 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.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Reading First Implementation Evaluation.

Frequency: Biennially.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 8,250.

  Burden Hours: 4,125.

Abstract: The proposed data collection is necessary to complete a national evaluation of Reading First. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess how the Reading First program is being implemented in a nationally representative sample of Reading First schools. The Reading Implementation Evaluation will use surveys of teachers, literacy coaches, and principals to answer the evaluation questions.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2546. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to 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 Katrina Ingalls at her e-mail address Katrina.Ingalls@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.

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 Acting Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, 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. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS).

Frequency: Varies.

Affected Public: Individuals or household; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 6,398.

 Burden Hours: 4,327.

Abstract: PEELS will provide the first national picture of experiences and outcomes of three to five year old children in early childhood special education. The study will inform special education policy development and support Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measurement and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization with data from parents, service providers, and teachers.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2590. 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 202-245-6621. 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 Sheila Carey at her e-mail address Sheila.Carey@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.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. This Federal Register notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved prior to the meeting date.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

The United States has produced DUF 6 since the early 1950s as part of the process of enriching natural uranium for both civilian and military applications. Production took place at three gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called ETTP) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and subsequently at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The K-25 plant ceased enrichment operations in 1985, and the Portsmouth plant ceased enrichment operations in 2001. The Paducah GDP continues to operate.

Approximately 250,000 t (275,000 tons) of DUF 6 is presently stored in about 16,000 cylinders at Portsmouth and about 4,800 cylinders at ETTP. The majority of the cylinders weigh approximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48 inches (1.2 m) in diameter, and are stored on outside pads. DOE has been looking at alternatives for managing this inventory. Also in storage are 3,200 cylinders at Portsmouth and 1,100 cylinders at ETTP that contain enriched UF 6 or normal UF 6 (collectively called “non-DUF 6 ” cylinders) or are empty. [The non-DUF 6 cylinders would not be processed in the conversion facility.] The Portsmouth FEIS considers the shipment of all ETTP cylinders to Portsmouth, as well as the management of both the Portsmouth and ETTP non-DUF 6 cylinders at Portsmouth.

As a first step, DOE evaluated potential broad management options for its DUF 6 inventory in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF 6 PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. In the PEIS Record of Decision (64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decided to promptly convert the DUF 6 inventory to a more stable uranium oxide form and stated that it would use the depleted uranium oxide as much as possible and store the remaining depleted uranium oxide for potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. In addition, DOE would convert DUF 6 to depleted uranium metal, but only if uses for metal were available. DOE did not select specific sites for the conversion facilities but reserved that decision for subsequent NEPA review. Today's Record of Decision announces the outcome of that site-specific NEPA review. DOE is also issuing today a separate but related ROD announcing the siting of a DUF 6 conversion facility at Paducah, Kentucky.

Congress enacted two laws that directly addressed DOE's management of its DUF 6 inventory. The first law, Pub. L. 105-204, signed by the President in July 1998, required the Secretary of Energy to prepare a plan to commence construction of, no later than January 31, 2004, and to operate an on-site facility at each of the GDPs at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle DUF 6 , consistent with NEPA. The second law, Pub. L. 107-206, signed by the President on August 2, 2002, required that no later than 30 days after enactment, DOE must award a contract for the scope of work described in its Request for Proposals (RFP) issued in October 2000 for the design, construction, and operation of a DUF 6 conversion facility at each of the Department's Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusion sites. It also stipulated that the contract require groundbreaking for construction to occur no later than July 31, 2004, at both sites.

In response to these laws, DOE issued the Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 in July 1999, and awarded a contract to Uranium Disposition Services (UDS) for construction and operation of two conversion facilities on August 29, 2002, consistent with NEPA.

On September 18, 2001, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (66 FR 48123) announcing its intention to prepare an EIS for the proposed action to construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two DUF 6 conversion facilities: One at Portsmouth and one at Paducah. Following the enactment of Pub. L. 107-206, DOE reevaluated the appropriate scope of its site-specific NEPA review and decided to prepare two separate EISs, one for the plant proposed for the Paducah site and a second for the Portsmouth site. This change in approach was announced in the Federal Register on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22368).

The two draft conversion facility EISs were mailed to stakeholders in late November 2003, and a Notice of Availability was published by the EPA in the Federal Register on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66824). Comments on the draft EISs were accepted during a 67-day review period that ended on February 2, 2004. DOE considered these comments and prepared two FEISs. The Notice of Availability for the two FEISs was published by the EPA in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004.

DOE needs to convert its inventory of DUF 6 to more stable chemical form(s) for use or disposal. This need follows directly from (1) the decision presented in the August 1999 ROD for the PEIS, namely, to begin conversion of the DUF 6 inventory as soon as possible, and (2) Pub. L. 107-206, which directs DOE to award a contract for construction and operation of conversion facilities at both the Paducah site and the Portsmouth site.

No Action Alternative. Under the no action alternative, conversion would not occur. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue: Thus the status quo would be maintained at Portsmouth and ETTP indefinitely.

Action Alternatives. The proposed action evaluated in the FEIS is to construct and operate a conversion facility at the Portsmouth site for conversion of the Portsmouth and ETTP DUF 6 inventories into depleted uranium oxide (primarily triuranium octaoxide [U 3 O 8 ]) and other conversion products. The FEIS review is based on the conceptual conversion facility design proposed by the selected contractor, UDS. The UDS dry conversion process is a continuous process in which DUF 6 is vaporized and converted to a mixture of uranium oxides (primarily U 3 O 8 ) by reaction with steam and hydrogen in a fluidized-bed conversion unit. The hydrogen is generated from anhydrous ammonia (NH 3 ). The depleted U 3 O 8 powder is collected and packaged for disposition in bulk bags (large-capacity, strong, flexible bags) or the emptied cylinders to the extent practicable. Equipment would also be installed to collect the aqueous HF (also called HF acid) co-product and process it into HF at concentrations suitable for commercial resale. A backup HF acid neutralization system would convert up to 100% of the HF acid to CaF 2 for sale or disposal in the future, if necessary. The conversion products would be transported to a disposal facility or to users by truck or rail. The conversion facility will be designed with three parallel processing lines to convert 13,500 t (15,000 tons) of DUF 6 per year, requiring 18 years to convert the Portsmouth and ETTP inventories.

Three alternative locations within the site were evaluated, Locations A (preferred), B, and C. The proposed action includes the transportation of the cylinders currently stored at the ETTP site to Portsmouth. In addition, an option of transporting the ETTP cylinders to Paducah was considered, as was an option of expanding conversion facility operations.

Alternative Location A (Preferred Alternative). Location A is the preferred location identified in the FEIS for the conversion facility and is located in the west-central portion of the site, encompassing 26 acres (10 ha). This location has three existing structures that were formerly used to store containerized lithium hydroxide monohydrate. The site was rough graded, and storm water ditch systems were installed. This location was identified in the RFP for conversion services as the site for which bidders were to design their proposed facilities.

Alternative Location B. Location B is in the southwestern portion of the site and encompasses approximately 50 acres (20 ha). The site has two existing structures built as part of the gas centrifuge enrichment project that was begun in the early 1980s and was terminated in 1985. USEC is currently in the process of developing and demonstrating an advanced enrichment technology based on gas centrifuges. A license for a lead test facility to be operated at the Portsmouth site was issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in February 2004. The lead facility would be located in the existing gas centrifuge buildings within Location B. In addition, USEC announced in January 2004 that it planned to site its American Centrifuge Facility at Portsmouth, although it did not identify an exact location. Therefore, Location B might not be available for construction of the conversion facility.

Alternative Location C. Location C is in the southeastern portion of the site and has an area of about 78 acres (31 ha). This location consists of a level to very gently rolling grass field. It was graded during the construction of the Portsmouth site and has been maintained as grass fields since then.

Under the action alternatives, DOE evaluated the impacts from packaging, handling, and transporting depleted uranium oxide conversion product (primarily U 3 O 8 ) from the conversion facility to a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility that would be (1) selected in a manner consistent with DOE policies and orders and (2) authorized to receive the conversion products by DOE (in conformance with DOE orders), or licensed by the NRC (in conformance with NRC regulations), or an NRC Agreement State agency (in conformance with state laws and regulations determined to be equivalent to NRC regulations). Assessment of the impacts and risks from on-site handling and disposal at an LLW disposal facility has been deferred to the disposal site's site-specific NEPA or licensing documents. While the FEIS presents the impacts from transporting the DUF 6 conversion products to both the Envirocare of Utah, Inc., facility and the Nevada Test Site (NTS), DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U 3 O 8 conversion product after additional NEPA review, as necessary. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making its specific disposal decision and will provide any additional NEPA analysis for public review and comment.

The following alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail in the FEIS: Use of Commercial Conversion Capacity, Sites Other Than Portsmouth, Alternative Conversion Processes, Long-Term Storage and Disposal Alternatives, Transportation Modes Other Than Truck and Rail, and One Conversion Plant Alternative.

The FEIS evaluated potential impacts from the range of alternatives described above. The impact areas included human health and safety, air quality, noise, water and soil, socioeconomics, ecological resources, waste management, resource requirements, land use, cultural resources, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts. In general, the impacts are low for both the no action and the proposed action alternatives. Among the three alternative locations considered at the Portsmouth site for the conversion facility, there are no major differences in impacts that would make one location clearly environmentally preferable. The discussion below summarizes the results of the FEIS impact analyses, highlighting the differences among the alternatives.

Human Health and Safety—Normal Operations and Transportation. Under all alternatives, it is estimated that potential exposures of workers and members of the general public to radiation and chemicals would be well within applicable public health standards and regulations. UDS would confirm, prior to conversion or at the initiation of the conversion operations, that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) releases to the workplace from the paint coating of some cylinders manufactured prior to 1978 would be within applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits. Transportation by rail would tend to cause fewer impacts than by truck primarily because of exhaust emissions from the trucks and the higher number of shipments for trucks than for rail. The option of converting the aqueous HF to CaF 2 and transporting the CaF 2 to a disposal facility would result in increased shipments. The impacts associated with transportation of uranium oxide product to a disposal facility in the western United States by truck would be about the same if bulk bags are used or two filled cylinders are loaded onto a truck. If only one cylinder is loaded onto a truck, the impacts would be higher because of the increased number of shipments.

Human Health and Safety—Accidents. DOE has extensive experience in safely storing, handling, and transporting cylinders containing UF 6 (depleted, normal, or enriched). In addition, the chemicals used or generated at the conversion facility are commonly used for industrial applications in the United States, and there are well-established accident prevention and mitigative measures for their storage and transportation.

Under all alternatives, it is possible that accidents could release radiation or chemicals to the environment, potentially affecting both the workers and members of the general public. It is also possible that, similar to other industrial facilities, workers could be injured or killed as a result of on-the-job accidents unrelated to radiation or chemical exposure. Similarly, during transportation of materials, both crew members and members of the public may be injured or killed as a result of traffic accidents.

Three kinds of accidents have the largest possible consequences: (1) Those involving the DUF 6 cylinders during storage and handling under all alternatives, (2) those involving chemicals used or generated by the conversion process at the conversion site (in particular NH 3 and aqueous HF) under the action alternatives, and (3) those occurring during transportation of chemicals and cylinders under the action alternatives, The severity of the consequences from such accidents would depend on weather conditions at the time of the accident, and, in the case of the transportation accidents, the location of the accident, and could be significant. However, those accidents would have a low estimated probability of occurring, making the risk low. (Risk is determined by multiplying the consequences by the probability of occurrence).

Under the no action alternative, the risks associated with cylinder storage and handling would continue to exist as long as the cylinders are there. However, under the action alternatives, the risks associated with both the cylinder accidents and the chemical accidents would decline over time and disappear at the completion of the conversion project.

In comparing truck versus rail transportation, even though the consequences of rail accidents are generally higher (because of the larger cargo load per railcar than per truck), the accident probabilities tend to be lower for railcars than for trucks. As a result, the risks of accidents would be about the same under either option.

Air Quality and Noise. Under the action alternatives, the total (modeled plus background value) concentrations due to emissions of most criteria pollutants—such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide—would be well within applicable air quality standards. For construction, the primary concern would be particulate matter (PM) released from near-ground-level sources. Total concentrations of PM 10 and PM 2.5 (PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less and 2.5 μm or less, respectively) at the construction site boundaries would be close to or above the standards because of the high background concentrations. On the basis of maximum background values from 5 years of monitoring at the nearest monitoring station, exceedance of the annual PM 2.5 standard would be unavoidable because the background concentration already exceeds the standard. Construction activities would be conducted so as to minimize further impacts on ambient air quality.

Water and Soil. During construction of the conversion facility, concentrations of any potential contaminants in soil, surface water, or groundwater would be kept well within applicable standards or guidelines by implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices. During operations, no impacts would be expected because no contaminated liquid effluents are anticipated.

Socioeconomics. Under the action alternatives, construction and operation of the conversion facility would create more jobs and personal income in the vicinity of the Portsmouth site than would be possible under the no action alternative. The number of jobs would be approximately 190 direct and 280 total during construction, and 160 direct and 320 total during operations.

Ecology. For the action alternatives, the total area disturbed during conversion facility construction would be up to 65 acres (26 ha). Although vegetation communities in the disturbed area would be impacted by a loss of habitat, impacts could be minimized ( e.g. , by appropriate placement of the facility within each location), and negligible long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are expected at all locations. Impacts to wetlands could be minimized, depending on where exactly the facility was placed within each location and by maintaining a buffer near adjacent wetlands during construction. During construction, trees with exfoliating bark (such as shagbark hickory or dead trees with loose bark) that can be used by the Indiana bat (federal- and state-listed as endangered) as roosting trees during the summer would be saved if possible.

Waste Management. Under the action alternatives, waste generated during construction and operations would have negligible impacts on the Portsmouth site waste management operations, with the exception of possible impacts from disposal of CaF 2 . If the aqueous HF were not sold but instead neutralized to CaF 2 , it is currently unknown whether (1) the CaF 2 could be sold, (2) the low uranium content would allow the CaF 2 to be disposed of as nonhazardous solid waste, or (3) disposal as LLW would be required. The low level of uranium contamination expected ( i.e. , less than 1 ppm) suggests that sale or disposal as nonhazardous solid waste would be most likely. Waste management for disposal as nonhazardous waste could be handled through appropriate planning and design of the facilities. If the CaF 2 had to be disposed of as LLW, it could represent a potentially large impact on waste management operations.

The U 3 O 8 produced during conversion would amount to about 5% of Portsmouth's annual projected LLW volume.

Cylinder Preparation at ETTP. The cylinders at ETTP will require preparation for shipment by either truck or rail. Three cylinder preparation options were considered for the shipment of noncompliant cylinders: cylinder overpacks, shipping “as-is” under a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) exemption, and use of a cylinder transfer facility (there are no current plans to build such a facility at ETTP). The operational impacts ( e.g. , storage, handling, and maintenance of cylinders) from any of the options would be small and limited primarily to external radiation exposure of involved workers. If a decision was made to construct and operate a transfer facility at ETTP in the future, additional NEPA review would be conducted.

Conversion Product Sale and Use. The conversion of the DUF 6 inventory produces products having some potential for reuse. These products include aqueous HF and CaF 2 , which are commonly used as commercial materials. DOE is currently pursuing the establishment of authorization limits (allowable concentration limits of uranium) in these products to be able to free-release them to commercial users. In addition, there is a small potential for reuse of the depleted uranium oxide product.

D&D Activities. D&D impacts would be primarily from external radiation to involved workers and would be a small fraction of allowable doses. Wastes generated during D&D operations would be disposed of in an appropriate disposal facility and would result in low impacts in comparison with projected site annual generation volumes.

Cumulative Impacts. The FEIS analyses indicated that no significant cumulative impacts at either the Portsmouth or the ETTP site and its vicinity would be anticipated due to the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Option of Expanding Conversion Facility Operations. The throughput of the Portsmouth facility could be increased either by making process efficiency improvements or by adding an additional (fourth) process line. The addition of a fourth process line at the Portsmouth facility would require the installation of additional plant equipment and would result in a nominal 33% increase in throughput compared with the current base design. This throughput increase would reduce the time necessary to convert the Portsmouth and ETTP DUF 6 inventories by about 5 years. The construction impacts presented in the FEIS would be the same if a fourth line was added, because the analyses in the FEIS used a footprint sized to accommodate four process lines. In general, a 33% increase in throughput would not result in significantly greater environmental impacts during operations than with three parallel lines. Although annual impacts in certain areas might increase up to 33% (proportional to the throughput increase), the estimated annual impacts during operations would remain well within applicable guidelines and regulations, with collective and cumulative impacts being quite low.

The conversion facility operations could be extended to process any additional DUF 6 for which DOE might assume responsibility by operating the facility longer than the currently anticipated 18 years. With routine facility and equipment maintenance and periodic equipment replacements or upgrades, it is believed that the conversion facility could be operated safely beyond this time period. If operations were extended beyond 18 years and if the operational characteristics ( e.g. , estimated releases of contaminants to air and water) of the facility remained unchanged, it is expected that the annual impacts would be essentially unchanged.

In general, the FEIS shows greater impacts for the no action alternative than for the proposed action of constructing and operating the conversion facility mainly because of the relatively higher radiation exposures of the workers from the cylinder management operations and cylinder yards and because the cylinders and associated risk would remain if no action occurred. However, considering the uncertainties in the impact estimates and the magnitude of the impacts, the differences are not considered to be significant. The no action alternative has the potential for groundwater contamination with uranium over the long-term; this adverse impact is not anticipated under the proposed action alternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would be higher for the action alternatives than for the no action alternative.

The impacts associated with transportation of materials among sites would be comparable whether the transportation is by truck or rail.

With all alternatives, there is the potential for some high-consequence accidents to occur. The risks associated with such accidents can only be completely eliminated when the conversion of the DUF 6 inventory has been completed.

Although there are some differences in impacts among the three alternative locations for the conversion facility, these differences are small and well within the uncertainties associated with the methods used to estimate impacts. In general, because of the relatively small risks that would result under all alternatives and the absence of any clear basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE concludes that no single alternative analyzed in depth in the FEIS is clearly environmentally preferable compared to the other alternatives.

The Final EIS was mailed to stakeholders in early June 2004, and the EPA issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 18, 2004. The entire document was also made available on the World Wide Web. Two comment letters were received on the DUF 6 Conversion Facility Final EISs. The State of Nevada indicated that it had no comments on the Final EISs and that the proposal was not in conflict with state plans, goals, or objectives. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 in Chicago, stated that the Portsmouth Final EIS adequately address its concerns, and that it concurs with the Preferred Alternative and has no further concerns.

DOE considered potential environmental impacts as identified in the FEIS (including the information contained in the classified appendix); cost; applicable regulatory requirements; Congressional direction as included in Pub. L. 105-204 and Pub. L. 107-206; agreements among DOE and the States of Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky concerning the management of DUF 6 currently stored at the Portsmouth, ETTP, and Paducah sites, respectively; and public comments in arriving at its decision. In deciding among the three alternative locations at the Portsmouth site for the conversion facility, DOE considered environmental factors, site preparation requirements affecting construction, availability of utilities, proximity to cylinder storage areas, and potential impacts to current or planned site operations. DOE has determined that Location A is the best alternative. DOE believes that the decision identified below best meets its programmatic goals and is consistent with all the regulatory requirements and public laws.

DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred alternative from the FEIS at Location A. This decision includes the following actions:

• DOE will construct and operate the conversion facility at Location A within the Portsmouth site. Construction will commence on or before July 31, 2004, as intended by Congress in Pub. L. 107-206.

• DUF 6 cylinders currently stored at ETTP will be shipped to Portsmouth for conversion; a new cylinder yard will be constructed, if necessary, based on the availability of storage yard space when the cylinders are received.

• All shipments to and from the sites, including the shipment of UF 6 cylinders (DUF 6 and non-DUF 6 ) currently stored at ETTP to Portsmouth, will be conducted by either truck or rail, as appropriate. Cylinders will be shipped in a manner that is consistent with DOT regulations for the transportation of UF 6 cylinders.

• Although efficiency improvements can be accomplished, which would increase the conversion facility's throughput and decrease the operational period, DOE has decided not to add the fourth processing line to the conversion facility at this time.

• Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) will continue, consistent with the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Management Plan included in the Ohio EPA Director's final findings and orders effective February 1998 and March 2004, which cover actions needed to meet safety and environmental requirements, until conversion could be accomplished.

• The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of authorized release limits as appropriate. If necessary, CaF 2 will be produced and reused, pending approval of authorized release limits, or disposed of as appropriate.

• The depleted U 3 O 8 conversion product will be reused to the extent possible or packaged for disposal in emptied cylinders at an appropriate disposal facility. DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U 3 O 8 conversion product after additional appropriate NEPA review. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making the specific disposal decision and will provide any supplemental NEPA analysis for public review and comment.

On the basis of the analyses conducted for the FEIS, the DOE will adopt all practicable measures, which are described below, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result from constructing and operating a conversion facility at Location A. These measures are either explicitly part of the alternative or are already performed as part of routine operations.

• The conversion facility will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the comprehensive set of DOE requirements and applicable regulatory requirements that have been established to protect public health and the environment. These requirements encompass a wide variety of areas, including radiation protection, facility design criteria, fire protection, emergency preparedness and response, and operational safety requirements.

• Cylinder management activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable DOE safety and environmental requirements, including the Cylinder Management Plan.

• Temporary impacts on air quality from fugitive dust emissions during reconstruction of cylinder yards or construction of any new facility will be controlled by the best available practices, as necessary, to comply with the established standards for PM 10 and PM 2.5 .

• During construction, impacts to water quality and soil will be minimized through implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices consistent with the Soil, Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan and Construction Management Plan.

• If live trees with exfoliating bark are encountered on construction areas, they will be saved if possible to avoid destroying potential habitat for the Indiana bat.

The United States has produced DUF 6 since the early 1950s as part of the process of enriching natural uranium for both civilian and military applications. Production took place at three gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs), first at the K-25 site (now called ETTP) at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and subsequently at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The K-25 plant ceased enrichment operations in 1985, and the Portsmouth plant ceased enrichment operations in 2001. The Paducah GDP continues to operate.

Approximately 440,000 t (484,000 tons) of DUF 6 is presently stored at Paducah in about 36,200 cylinders. The majority of the cylinders weigh approximately 12 t (14 tons) each, are 48 inches (1.2 m) in diameter, and are stored on outside pads. DOE has been looking at alternatives for managing this inventory. Also in storage at Paducah are approximately 1,940 cylinders of various sizes that contain enriched UF 6 or normal UF 6 (collectively called “non-DUF 6 ” cylinders) or are empty. [The non-DUF 6 cylinders would not be processed in the conversion facility.]

As a first step, DOE evaluated potential broad management options for its DUF 6 inventory in a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term Management and Use of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF 6 PEIS) (DOE/EIS-0269) issued in April 1999. In the PEIS Record of Decision (64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE decided to promptly convert the DUF 6 inventory to a more stable uranium oxide form and stated that it would use the depleted uranium oxide as much as possible and store the remaining depleted uranium oxide for potential future uses or disposal, as necessary. In addition, DOE would convert DUF 6 to depleted uranium metal, but only if uses for metal were available. DOE did not select specific sites for the conversion facilities but reserved that decision for subsequent NEPA review. Today's Record of Decision announces the outcome of that site-specific NEPA review. DOE is also issuing today a separate but related ROD announcing the siting of a DUF 6 conversion facility at Portsmouth, Ohio.

Congress enacted two laws that directly addressed DOE's management of its DUF 6 inventory. The first law, Public Law 105-204, signed by the President in July 1998, required the Secretary of Energy to prepare a plan to commence construction of, no later than January 31, 2004, and to operate an on-site facility at each of the GDPs at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, to treat and recycle DUF 6 , consistent with NEPA. The second law, Public Law 107-206, signed by the President on August 2, 2002, required that no later than 30 days after enactment, DOE must award a contract for the scope of work described in its Request for Proposals (RFP) issued in October 2000 for the design, construction, and operation of a DUF 6 conversion facility at each of the Department's Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, gaseous diffusion sites. It also stipulated that the contract require groundbreaking for construction to occur no later than July 31, 2004, at both sites.

In response to these laws, DOE issued the Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 in July 1999, and awarded a contract to Uranium Disposition Services (UDS) for construction and operation of two conversion facilities on August 29, 2002, consistent with NEPA.

On September 18, 2001, DOE published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register (66 FR 48123) announcing its intention to prepare an EIS for the proposed action to construct, operate, maintain, and decontaminate and decommission two DUF 6 conversion facilities: One at Portsmouth and one at Paducah. Following the enactment of Public Law 107-206, DOE reevaluated the appropriate scope of its site-specific NEPA review and decided to prepare two separate EISs, one for the plant proposed for the Paducah site and a second for the Portsmouth site. This change in approach was announced in the Federal Register on April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22368).

The two draft conversion facility EISs were mailed to stakeholders in late November 2003, and a Notice of Availability was published by the EPA in the Federal Register on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66824). Comments on the draft EISs were accepted during a 67-day review period that ended on February 2, 2004. DOE considered these comments and prepared two FEISs. The Notice of Availability for the two FEISs was published by the EPA in the Federal Register (69 FR 34161) on June 18, 2004.

DOE needs to convert its inventory of DUF 6 to more stable chemical form(s) for use or disposal. This need follows directly from (1) the decision presented in the August 1999 ROD for the PEIS, namely, to begin conversion of the DUF 6 inventory as soon as possible, and (2) Public Law 107-206, which directs DOE to award a contract for construction and operation of conversion facilities at both the Paducah site and the Portsmouth site.

No Action Alternative. Under the no action alternative, conversion would not occur. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) would continue; thus the status quo would be maintained at Paducah indefinitely.

Action Alternatives. The proposed action evaluated in the FEIS is to construct and operate a conversion facility at the Paducah site for conversion of the Paducah DUF 6 inventory into depleted uranium oxide (primarily triuranium octaoxide [U 3 O 8 ]) and other conversion products. The FEIS review is based on the conceptual conversion facility design proposed by the selected contractor, UDS. The UDS dry conversion process is a continuous process in which DUF 6 is vaporized and converted to a mixture of uranium oxides (primarily U 3 O 8 ) by reaction with steam and hydrogen in a fluidized-bed conversion unit. The hydrogen is generated from anhydrous ammonia (NH 3 ). The depleted U 3 O 8 powder is collected and packaged for disposition in bulk bags (large-capacity, strong, flexible bags) or the emptied cylinders to the extent practicable. Equipment would also be installed to collect the aqueous HF (also called HF acid) co-product and process it into HF at concentrations suitable for commercial resale. A backup HF acid neutralization system would convert up to 100% of the HF acid to CaF 2 for sale or disposal in the future, if necessary. The conversion products would be transported to a disposal facility or to users by truck or rail. The conversion facility will be designed with four parallel processing lines to convert 18,000 t (20,000 tons) of DUF 6 per year, requiring 25 years to convert the Paducah inventory.

Three alternative locations within the site were evaluated, Locations A (preferred), B, and C. In addition, an option of transporting the ETTP cylinders to Paducah rather than to Portsmouth was considered, as was an option of expanding conversion facility operations.

Alternative Location A (Preferred Alternative). Location A is the preferred location for the conversion facility. It is located south of the administration building and its parking lot, immediately west of and next to the primary location of the DOE cylinder yards and east of the main plant access road. This location is an L-shaped tract consisting mostly of grassy field. However, the southeastern section is a wooded area. A drainage ditch crosses the northern part of the site, giving the cylinder yard storm water access to Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) Outfall 017. This location is about 35 acres (14 ha) in size and was identified in the RFP for conversion services as the site for which bidders were to design their proposed facilities.

Alternative Location B. Location B is directly south of the Paducah maintenance building and west of the main plant access road. The northern part of this location is mowed grass and has a slightly rolling topography. The southern part has a dense covering of trees and brush, and some high-voltage power lines cross it, limiting its use. This location has an area of about 59 acres (23 ha).

Alternative Location C. Location C is east of the Paducah pump house and cooling towers. It has an area of about 53 acres (21 ha). Dykes Road runs through the center of this location from north to south. Use of the eastern half of this location could be somewhat limited because several high-voltage power lines run through this area.

Under the action alternatives, DOE evaluated the impacts from packaging, handling, and transporting depleted uranium oxide conversion product (primarily U 3 O 8 ) from the conversion facility to a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility that would be (1) selected in a manner consistent with DOE policies and orders and (2) authorized to receive the conversion products by DOE (in conformance with DOE orders), or licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (in conformance with NRC regulations), or an NRC Agreement State agency (in conformance with state laws and regulations determined to be equivalent to NRC regulations). Assessment of the impacts and risks from on-site handling and disposal at an LLW disposal facility has been deferred to the disposal site's site-specific NEPA or licensing documents. While the FEIS presents the impacts from transporting the DUF 6 conversion products to both the Envirocare of Utah, Inc., facility and the Nevada Test Site (NTS), DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U 3 O 8 conversion product after additional NEPA review, as necessary. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making its specific disposal decision and will provide any additional NEPA analysis for public review and comment.

The following alternatives were considered but not analyzed in detail in the FEIS: Use of Commercial Conversion Capacity, Sites Other Than Paducah, Alternative Conversion Processes, Long-Term Storage and Disposal Alternatives, Transportation Modes Other Than Truck and Rail, and One Conversion Plant Alternative.

The FEIS evaluated potential impacts from the range of alternatives described above. The impact areas included human health and safety, air quality, noise, water and soil, socioeconomics, ecological resources, waste management, resource requirements, land use, cultural resources, environmental justice, and cumulative impacts. In general, the impacts are low for both the no action and the proposed action alternatives. Among the three alternative locations considered at the Paducah site for the conversion facility, there are no major differences in impacts that would make one location clearly environmentally preferable. The discussion below summarizes the results of the FEIS impact analyses, highlighting the differences among the alternatives.

Human Health and Safety—Normal Operations and Transportation. Under all alternatives, it is estimated that potential exposures of workers and members of the general public to radiation and chemicals would be well within applicable public health standards and regulations. UDS would confirm, prior to conversion or at the initiation of the conversion operations, that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) releases to the workplace from the paint coating of some cylinders manufactured prior to 1978 would be within applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits. Transportation by rail would tend to cause fewer impacts than by truck primarily because of exhaust emissions from the trucks and the higher number of shipments for trucks than for rail. The option of converting the aqueous HF to CaF 2 and transporting the CaF 2 to a disposal facility would result in increased shipments. The impacts associated with transportation of uranium oxide product to a disposal facility in the western United States by truck would be about the same if bulk bags are used or two filled cylinders are loaded onto a truck. If only one cylinder is loaded onto a truck, the impacts would be higher because of the increased number of shipments.

Human Health and Safety—Accidents. DOE has extensive experience in safely storing, handling, and transporting cylinders containing UF 6 (depleted, normal, or enriched). In addition, the chemicals used or generated at the conversion facility are commonly used for industrial applications in the United States, and there are well-established accident prevention and mitigative measures for their storage and transportation.

Under all alternatives, it is possible that accidents could release radiation or chemicals to the environment, potentially affecting both the workers and members of the general public. It is also possible that, similar to other industrial facilities, workers could be injured or killed as a result of on-the-job accidents unrelated to radiation or chemical exposure. Similarly, during transportation of materials, both crew members and members of the public may be injured or killed as a result of traffic accidents.

Three kinds of accidents have the largest possible consequences: (1) Those involving the DUF 6 cylinders during storage and handling under all alternatives, (2) those involving chemicals used or generated by the conversion process at the conversion site (in particular NH 3 and aqueous HF) under the action alternatives, and (3) those occurring during transportation of chemicals and cylinders under the action alternatives. The severity of the consequences from such accidents would depend on weather conditions at the time of the accident, and, in the case of the transportation accidents, the location of the accident, and could be significant. However, those accidents would have a low estimated probability of occurring, making the risk low. (Risk is determined by multiplying the consequences by the probability of occurrence).

In comparing truck versus rail transportation, even though the consequences of rail accidents are generally higher (because of the larger cargo load per railcar than per truck), the accident probabilities tend to be lower for railcars than for trucks. As a result, the risks of accidents would be about the same under either option.

Under the no action alternative, the risks associated with cylinder storage and handling would continue to exist as long as the cylinders are there. However, under the action alternatives, the risks associated with both the cylinder accidents and the chemical accidents would decline over time and disappear at the completion of the project.

Air Quality and Noise. Under the action alternatives, the total (modeled plus background value) concentrations due to emissions of most criteria pollutants—such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide—would be well within applicable air quality standards. For construction, the primary concern would be particulate matter (PM) released from near-ground-level sources. Total concentrations of PM 10 and PM 2.5 (PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less and 2.5 μm or less, respectively) at the construction site boundaries would be close to or above the standards because of the high background concentrations. Accordingly, construction activities would be conducted so as to minimize further impacts on ambient air quality.

Water and Soil. During construction of the conversion facility, concentrations of any potential contaminants in soil, surface water, or groundwater would be kept well within applicable standards or guidelines by implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices. During operations, no impacts would be expected because no contaminated liquid effluents are anticipated.

Socioeconomics. Under the action alternatives, construction and operation of the conversion facility would create more jobs and personal income in the vicinity of the Paducah site than would be possible under the no action alternative. The number of jobs would be approximately 190 direct and 290 total during construction, and 160 direct and 330 total during operations.

Ecology. For the action alternatives, the total area disturbed during conversion facility construction would be up to 45 acres (18 ha). Although vegetation communities in the disturbed area would be impacted by a loss of habitat, impacts could be minimized ( e.g. , by appropriate placement of the facility within each location), and negligible long-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife are expected at all locations. Impacts to wetlands could be minimized, depending on where exactly the facility was placed within each location and by maintaining a buffer near adjacent wetlands during construction. Construction of the conversion facility in the eastern portion of Location C could impact potential habitat for cream wild indigo (state-listed as a species of special concern) and compass plant (state-listed as threatened). For construction at all three locations, potential impacts to forested areas could be avoided if temporary construction areas were placed in previously disturbed locations. During construction, trees with exfoliating bark (such as shagbark hickory or dead trees with loose bark) that can be used by the Indiana bat (federal- and state-listed as endangered) as roosting trees during the summer would be saved if possible.

Waste Management. Under the action alternatives, waste generated during construction and operations would have negligible impacts on the Paducah site waste management operations, with the exception of possible impacts from disposal of CaF 2 . If the aqueous HF were not sold but instead neutralized to CaF 2 , it is currently unknown whether (1) the CaF 2 could be sold, (2) the low uranium content would allow the CaF 2 to be disposed of as nonhazardous solid waste, or (3) disposal as LLW would be required. The low level of uranium contamination expected ( i.e. , less than 1 ppm) suggests that sale or disposal as nonhazardous solid waste would be most likely. Waste management for disposal as nonhazardous waste could be handled through appropriate planning and design of the facilities. If the CaF 2 had to be disposed of as LLW, it could represent a potentially large impact on waste management operations.

The U 3 O 8 produced during conversion would amount to about 80% of Paducah's annual projected LLW volume.

Option of Shipping ETTP Cylinders to Paducah. The cylinders at ETTP would require preparation for shipment by either truck or rail. Three cylinder preparation options were considered for the shipment of noncompliant cylinders: cylinder overpacks, shipping “as-is” under a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) exemption, and use of a cylinder transfer facility (there are no current plans to build such a facility at ETTP). The operational impacts ( e.g. , storage, handling, and maintenance of cylinders) from any of the options would be small and limited primarily to external radiation exposure of involved workers. The annual impacts from conversion operations at Paducah would remain the same, however the conversion period would be approximately 3 years longer. If a decision was made to construct and operate a transfer facility at ETTP in the future, additional NEPA review would be conducted.

Conversion Product Sale and Use. The conversion of the DUF 6 inventory produces products having some potential for reuse. These products include aqueous HF and CaF 2 , which are commonly used as commercial materials. DOE is currently pursuing the establishment of authorization limits (allowable concentration limits of uranium) in these products to be able to free-release them to commercial users. In addition, there is a small potential for reuse of the depleted uranium oxide product.

D&D Activities. D&D impacts would be primarily from external radiation to involved workers and would be a small fraction of allowable doses. Wastes generated during D&D operations would be disposed of in an appropriate disposal facility and would result in low impacts in comparison with projected site annual generation volumes.

Cumulative Impacts. The FEIS analyses indicated that no significant cumulative impacts at the Paducah site and its vicinity would be anticipated due to the incremental impacts of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Option of Expanding Conversion Facility Operations. The throughput of the Paducah facility could be increased by making process efficiency improvements. Such an increase would not be expected to significantly change the overall environmental impacts when compared with those of the current plant design.

The conversion facility operations could be extended to process any additional DUF 6 for which DOE might assume responsibility by operating the facility longer than the currently anticipated 25 years. With routine facility and equipment maintenance and periodic equipment replacements or upgrades, it is believed that the conversion facility could be operated safely beyond this time period. If operations were extended beyond 25 years and if the operational characteristics ( e.g. , estimated releases of contaminants to air and water) of the facility remained unchanged, it is expected that the annual impacts would be essentially unchanged.

In general, the FEIS shows greater impacts for the no action alternative than for the proposed action of constructing and operating the conversion facility mainly because of the relatively higher radiation exposures of the workers from the cylinder management operations and cylinder yards and because the cylinders and associated risk would remain if no action occurred. However, considering the uncertainties in the impact estimates and the magnitude of the impacts, the differences are not considered to be significant. The no action alternative has the potential for groundwater contamination with uranium over the long-term; this adverse impact is not anticipated under the proposed action alternatives. Beneficial socioeconomic impacts would be higher for the action alternatives than for the no action alternative.

The impacts associated with transportation of materials among sites would be comparable whether the transportation is by truck or rail.

With all alternatives, there is the potential for some high-consequence accidents to occur. The risks associated with such accidents can only be completely eliminated when the conversion of the DUF 6 inventory has been completed.

Although there are some differences in impacts among the three alternative locations for the conversion facility, these differences are small and well within the uncertainties associated with the methods used to estimate impacts. In general, because of the relatively small risks that would result under all alternatives and the absence of any clear basis for discerning an environmental preference, DOE concludes that no single alternative analyzed in depth in the FEIS is clearly environmentally preferable compared to the other alternatives.

The Final EIS was mailed to stakeholders in early June 2004, and the EPA issued a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 18, 2004. The entire document was also made available on the World Wide Web. Two comment letters were received on the DUF 6 Conversion Facility Final EISs. The State of Nevada indicated that it had no comments on the Final EISs and that the proposal was not in conflict with state plans, goals, or objectives. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 in Chicago, stated that the Portsmouth Final EIS adequately address its concerns, and that it concurs with the Preferred Alternative and has no further concerns.

DOE considered potential environmental impacts as identified in the FEIS (including the information contained in the classified appendix); cost; applicable regulatory requirements; Congressional direction as included in Public Law 105-204 and 107-206; agreements among DOE and the States of Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky concerning the management of DUF 6 currently stored at the Portsmouth, ETTP, and Paducah sites, respectively; and public comments in arriving at its decision. In deciding among the three alternative locations at the Paducah site for the conversion facility, DOE considered environmental factors, site preparation requirements affecting construction, availability of utilities, proximity to cylinder storage areas, and potential impacts to current or planned site operations. DOE has determined that Location A is the best alternative. DOE believes that the decision identified below best meets its programmatic goals and is consistent with all the regulatory requirements and public laws.

DOE has decided to implement the actions described in the preferred alternative from the FEIS at Location A. This decision includes the following actions:

• DOE will construct and operate the conversion facility at Location A within the Paducah site. Construction will commence on or before July 31, 2004, as intended by Congress in Public Law 107-206.

• All shipments to and from the conversion site, including any potential shipments of non-DUF 6 cylinders currently stored at ETTP to Paducah, will be conducted by either truck or rail, as appropriate. Cylinders will be shipped in a manner that is consistent with DOT regulations for the transportation of UF 6 cylinders.

• Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) will continue, consistent with the Cylinder Project Management Plan for Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, effective October 2003, which cover actions needed to meet safety and environmental requirements, until conversion could be accomplished.

• The aqueous HF produced during conversion will be sold for use, pending approval of authorized release limits as appropriate. If necessary, CaF 2 will be produced and reused, pending approval of authorized release limits, or disposed of as appropriate.

• The depleted U 3 O 8 conversion product will be reused to the extent possible or packaged for disposal in emptied cylinders at an appropriate disposal facility. DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted U 3 O 8 conversion product after additional appropriate NEPA review. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making the specific disposal decision and will provide any supplemental NEPA analysis for public review and comment.

On the basis of the analyses conducted for the FEIS, the DOE will adopt all practicable measures, which are described below, to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts that may result from constructing and operating a conversion facility at Location A. These measures are either explicitly part of the alternative or are already performed as part of routine operations.

• The conversion facility will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the comprehensive set of DOE requirements and applicable regulatory requirements that have been established to protect public health and the environment. These requirements encompass a wide variety of areas, including radiation protection, facility design criteria, fire protection, emergency preparedness and response, and operational safety requirements.

• Temporary impacts on air quality from fugitive dust emissions during reconstruction of cylinder yards or construction of any new facility will be controlled by the best available practices, as necessary, to comply with the established standards for PM 10 and PM 2.5 .

• During construction, impacts to water quality and soil will be minimized through implementing storm water management, sediment and erosion controls, and good construction practices consistent with the Soil, Erosion, and Sediment Control Plan and Construction Management Plan.

• If live trees with exfoliating bark are encountered on construction areas, they will be saved if possible to avoid destroying potential habitat for the Indiana bat.

This is a summary of a Public Notice released on July 8, 2004.

1. The Commission, in 1995, adopted a new, more efficient channel plan for PLMR services in the 450-470 MHz band. Under the channel plan adopted, channels in the 450-470 MHz band that were 12.5 kHz removed from regularly-assignable channels at that time (“12.5 kHz offset channels”) would be available for high power operations. Previously, medical telemetry systems used these “offsets” on a secondary, noninterference basis to primary adjacent channel PLMR operations. Recognizing that co-channel, high power operations could result in interference to medical telemetry operations, the Bureau froze the filing of applications for high power operations on offset channels in the 450-470 MHz band pending resolution of the medical telemetry issues.

2. In June 2000, the Commission established the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), an action aimed at ensuring that in-hospital medical telemetry devices can operate free of harmful interference. In establishing the WMTS, the Commission allotted a total of 13.5 megahertz of spectrum on a primary basis in three blocks (608-614 MHz, 1395-1400 MHz, and 1427-1429.5 MHz). Also, the Commission determined that WMTS operations should be licensed by rule in lieu of individual licensing. Based on this decision, the Commission further decided that there was a need to establish some mechanism to track the usage of WMTS transmitters. In this regard, the Commission concluded that this information should be maintained in a database by one or more private sector frequency coordinators to be designated by the Bureau. Prior to operation, health care providers must register all medical telemetry devices operating on WMTS spectrum. In addition, the Commission encouraged hospitals to migrate their medical telemetry operations from the 460-470 MHz band to the new WMTS bands. To accommodate this migration, the Commission stated its intention to lift the freeze on applications for high power use of offset channels in the 460-470 MHz band within three years of the effective date of the WMTS rules.

3. On September 23, 2003, however, the American Hospital Association (AHA) reported that, based on its recent, informal polling of hospitals, there has been virtually no migration of medical telemetry systems to the WMTS frequencies. AHA noted that high power use in the 460-470 MHz band has the potential to interfere with existing medical telemetry systems that have not moved to the WMTS frequencies. AHA also recognized that the land mobile radio community is eager to obtain the full utilization of this band. In this connection, AHA stated that “no one will benefit if widespread interference to medical telemetry services results from the premature use of this band by higher-powered land mobile systems.” To address this matter, AHA asked that the freeze not be lifted and proposed a thirty-month plan for the transition of medical telemetry operations to the WMTS spectrum. In a Public Notice released October 15, 2003, the Bureau announced it was extending the freeze for a period of up to 180 days and sought comment on the AHA proposal. The Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC), an umbrella organization representing the PLMR community that includes as members all Part 90 frequency coordinators, opposed the AHA proposal.

4. The Bureau has been working with AHA and the American Society for Health Care Engineering (ASHE), representing health care provider interests, and LMCC, representing the interests of the PLMR community, to develop a plan to allow for the orderly transition of high power operations on 12.5 kHz offset channels in the PLMR 460-470 MHz band. The Bureau also has been coordinating with representatives of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on this matter to ensure that medical telemetry communications, particularly those of a critical nature, are not adversely affected during such transition. In this regard, the Bureau has extended the current freeze on previous occasions in an effort to develop a transition plan and process which equitably balanced the interests of the identified stakeholders and resulted in minimum disruption to current operations in the 460-470 MHz band. After months of discussions coordinated with the Bureau, AHA and LMCC, by consensus, developed an approach whereby the current freeze would remain in effect through December 31, 2005.

5. AHA and LMCC believe, on balance, that the public interest would be best served by maintaining the current freeze until December 31, 2005, rather than lifting it at some earlier time. This approach provides a date certain by which all medical telemetry operations in the 460-470 MHz band can either transition to the WMTS spectrum or obtain interference protection by becoming licensed on the same basis as other part 90 operations. It also provides sufficient time to permit effective planning for an orderly and efficient transition so as to avoid disruption to ongoing medical telemetry operations. In addition, it provides a mechanism to continue to protect medical telemetry operations from harmful interference pending their transition to WMTS spectrum or part 90 licensing.

6. Given this extended transition, the parties have agreed to work with both the FCC and the FDA to provide impetus for the migration of hospitals from the 460 MHz band to the new WMTS bands. To further assist health care facilities still operating low-powered telemetry systems in the 460-470 MHz band in their transition to the WMTS spectrum or to fully licensed status, ASHE has created a registration process that will allow such hospitals and health care facilities to register information about their current use with ASHE. This registration program will allow AHA and ASHE to compile a more accurate database of the number, location and frequency being used by hospitals operating in the 460-470 MHz band, which will, in turn allow AHA, ASHE, the FDA and the Bureau to track the progress of the migration of medical telemetry devices out of the 460-470 MHz band, assist hospitals with problems in migration, and communicate with the affected hospitals regarding the regulatory impact of the lifting of the freeze on December 31, 2005. We take this opportunity to remind operators of WMTS equipment that to be licensed as required by the Commission's rules, they must register their equipment and frequencies with ASHE prior to operation. See 47 CFR 95.1111.

7. The decision to extend the freeze is procedural in nature and therefore not subject to the notice and comment and effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Moreover, there is good cause for not using notice and comment procedures in this case, or making the freeze extension effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . We find that such procedures would be impractical, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest as our compliance would undermine the public policy rationale of the freeze in the first place.

This action is authorized under Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and is taken under delegated authority pursuant to §§ 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331.

Title: Depositor Claims for Increased Insurance.

OMB Number: New collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Depositors of failed insured institutions who had more than $100,000 deposited in a testamentary deposit account, a trust account, a defined benefit plan, or other retirement account who may be entitled to more than $100,000 in deposit insurance.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 5,025.

Estimated Time per Response: The time per response will range from one-half hour to one hour depending on the form required.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,738 hours.

General Description of Collection: Depositors of failed institutions initially deemed to be uninsured because their deposits are over $100,000 may be qualified for additional insurance coverage if they provide the FDIC with documents certifying to the existence of varying ownership rights and capacities. The forms in this collection facilitate customers providing the FDIC with the information that would allow increased insurance coverage. Further information about this submission, including copies of the collection of information, may be obtained by calling or writing the FDIC contact listed above.

The property is identified as follows:

All Applications to Purchase must be executed and returned to the General Services Administration no later than January 24, 2005. Though a contract for sale and closing may not be readily accomplished, the time within which you respond may affect your eligibility to purchase. The first person to execute and return an acceptable Application to Purchase has the first option to purchase if the previous owner(s) is not interested.

All previous owners or direct descendants will be required to substantiate that they are a previous owner (or direct descendant) of the property they wish to purchase.

We encourage you to participate in this request for comment by submitting comments and related materials. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, and they will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with DOT to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see the paragraph on DOT's “Privacy Act” below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this request for comment [USCG-2004-17511], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view of them.

Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .

Regulatory History: This request constitutes the 30-day notice required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has already published (69 FR 19446, April 13, 2004) the 60-day notice required by OIRA. That notice elicited no comments.

Request for Comments: The Coast Guard invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine whether the collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the Department's estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments, to DMS or OIRA, must contain the OMB Control Number of the Information Collection Reports (ICR) addressed. Comments to DMS must contain the docket number of this request, USCG 2003-16251 comments to OIRA are best assured of having their full effect if OIRA receives them 30 or fewer days after the publication of this request.

1. Title: Carriage of Bulk Solids Requiring Special Handling—46 CFR part 148.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0025 [Formerly 2115-0100].

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Owners and operators of vessels that carry certain bulk solids.

Form: None.

Abstract: The Coast Guard administers and enforces statutes and rules for the safe transport and stowage of hazardous materials, including bulk solids. Under 46 CFR part 148, the Coast Guard may issue special permits for the carriage of bulk solids requiring special handling.

Burden Estimates: The estimated burden is 1,130 hours a year.

2. Title: Oil and Hazardous Materials Transfer Procedures.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0030 [Formerly 2115-0120].

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Owners and operators of vessels.

Form: None.

Abstract: Title 33 U.S.C. 1231 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe regulations related to the prevention of pollution. Title 33 CFR part 155 prescribe pollution prevention regulations including those related to transfer procedures.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 89 hours a year.

3. Title: Waste Management Plans, Refuse Discharge Logs, and Letters of Instruction for Certain Persons-in-Charge (PIC).

OMB Control Number: 1625-0072 [Formerly 2115-0613].

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Owners, operators, masters, and persons-in-charge of vessels.

Form: None.

Abstract: This collection of information is needed as part of the Coast Guard's pollution prevention compliance program.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 55,484 hours a year.

4. Title: Licensing and Manning Requirements for Officers of Towing Vessels.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0078 [Formerly 2115-0623].

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Owners and operators of towing vessels.

Form: None.

Abstract: Title 46 CFR part 10 prescribe regulations for the licensing of maritime personnel. This information collection is necessary to ensure that a mariner's training information is available to assist in determining his or her overall qualifications to hold certain licenses.

Burden Estimates: The estimated burden is 17,159 hours a year.

5. Title: Navigation Safety Equipment and Emergency Instructions for Certain Towing Vessels.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0082 [Formerly 2115-0628].

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Owners, operators, and masters of vessels.

Form: None.

Abstract: The purpose of the regulations is to improve the safety of towing vessels and the crews that operate them.

Burden Estimates: The estimated burden is 367,701 hours a year.

The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) is an advisory committee constituted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. It provides advice and makes recommendations to the Commandant through the Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Environmental Protection on matters relating to the safe and secure transportation and handling of hazardous materials in bulk on U.S.-flag vessels in U.S. ports and waterways. The advice and recommendations of CTAC also assist the U.S. Coast Guard in formulating the position of the United States on hazardous material transportation issues prior to meetings of the International Maritime Organization.

CTAC meets at least once a year, usually twice a year, at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC, or in another location. CTAC's subcommittees and working groups may meet to perform specific assignments as required.

The Coast Guard will consider applications for eight positions that expire in December 2004. To be eligible, applicants should have experience in chemical manufacturing, vessel design and construction, marine transportation of chemicals, occupational safety and health, or marine environmental protection issues associated with chemical transportation. Each member serves for a term of 3 years. Some members may serve consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense, and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from the Federal Government.

In support of the policy of the Department of Homeland Security on gender and ethnic diversity, the Coast Guard encourages applications from qualified women and members of minority groups.

The Port of New Orleans requested a temporary deviation from the normal operation of the drawbridge in order to replace a damaged link pin bushing in the inboard side of the strain arm. This bushing has been damaged as the result of numerous bridge allisions that have occurred recently. The repairs are necessary to ensure the continued operation of the drawbridge. This temporary deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. on Thursday, July 29, 2004 until 7 a.m. on Friday, July 30, 2004. In the event of an approaching tropical storm or hurricane, prior to commencement of repairs, the work will be rescheduled and the bridge will continue to operate normally.

The bridge has a vertical clearance of one foot above high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, small ships, fishing vessels, sailing vessels, and other recreational craft. Due to prior experience, as well as coordination with waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. No alternate routes are available. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective July 12, 2004.