Notices. Notice of proposed priorities

5,414 words·~25 min read·/register/2004/12/01/04-26470

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Comprehensive School Reform Quality Initiatives Program AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities. SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education proposes priorities for the competitions under the Comprehensive School Reform

(CSR)Quality Initiatives program to reflect the importance of all children meeting challenging State academic content and State academic achievement standards. The Assistant Secretary may use these proposed priorities for competitions in fiscal year

(FY)2005 and in later years. DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 3, 2005. ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed priorities to Margaret McNeely, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3W103, Washington, DC 20202-6200, Fax

(202)260-8969. If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the following address: *compreform@ed.gov* . You must include the term COMMENTS in the subject line of your electronic message. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret McNeely. Telephone:

(202)260-1335 or via the Internet at *compreform@ed.gov* . If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation To Comment We invite you to submit written comments regarding these proposed priorities. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority that each comment addresses. We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program. During and after the public comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed priorities in Room 3W103, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20202 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for these proposed priorities. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. General The purpose of the CSR Quality Initiatives program, authorized under section 1608 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), is to provide discretionary grants to support activities that will enhance the State-administered CSR program and to enable schools that have been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Title I of the ESEA to meet their State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP). Under this program, the Secretary awards funds to support two specific categories of activities: Category 1—technical assistance to States, school districts and schools in making informed decisions regarding approving or selecting providers of comprehensive school reform, and Category 2—capacity building for comprehensive school reform providers to expand their work in more schools, assure quality and promote financial stability. Background of Proposed Priorities Grantees under Category 1 assist States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and schools in making informed decisions regarding approving or selecting providers of comprehensive school reform, consistent with the requirements of section 1606(a) of the ESEA, as amended. Research and evaluation studies of comprehensive school reform implementation indicate that schools in need of improvement face a myriad of challenges in meeting AYP. One of these challenges is to expand the knowledge of district and school personnel regarding school reform strategies and methods so that they can effectively assist in identifying clearly the teaching and learning needs of the school and can identify the service provider that can best meet those needs. With more quality information about the problem areas and scientifically-based solutions, schools will be in a stronger position to implement school reforms effectively. In addition to the need for schools and districts to become better consumers of school reform data and research, school- and district-based reformers need to have a better understanding of the timeline for implementing the necessary changes in teaching and learning and how to track student achievement gains throughout the process. Accordingly, we are proposing a priority for Category 1 projects that will provide States, districts and schools with high-quality information tools and other forms of technical assistance to identify the instructional needs of students and to select a reform approach and provider to meet those needs effectively so that all students are able to meet challenging State academic content and student achievement standards and so that schools are able to make AYP. To implement the matching requirements of the ESEA, we are also proposing a priority for Category 1 projects that propose to match Federal funds received under this competition with funds from one or more private organizations. Category 2 projects foster the development of comprehensive school reform models and provide effective capacity building for comprehensive school reform providers to expand their work in more schools and ensure quality. Meeting the needs of all students within CSR schools, including traditionally underserved students such as students with disabilities, limited English proficient students and students in rural areas, requires additional development efforts on the part of CSR service providers. Although some service providers recommend one or more strategies for including these underserved students, there is still a need to provide schools with better information, guidance and professional development on how to serve these students specifically. Thus, for Category 2 projects, we are proposing a priority for projects that will focus activities on developing and testing strategies to meet the needs of these groups of students. We are also proposing a priority that would apply to both Category 1 and Category 2 projects. Both the technical assistance and capacity building projects are national in scope thus impacting more than one school, district or State. The strategies and approaches developed by the Category 1 projects will be used across the country and across site-specific conditions. Therefore, the most effective technical assistance effort will take place in varied sites. For the Category 2 projects, the focus is on improving services to students and should be developed and tested across multiple locations and conditions. Thus, for both Category 1 and Category 2 projects, we are proposing a priority that would provide assistance to LEAs in more than one State. Discussion of Priorities We will announce the final priorities in a notice in the **Federal Register** . We will determine the final priorities after considering written responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding additional priorities, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements. Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use these proposed priorities, we invite applications through a notice in the **Federal Register** . When inviting applications we designate the priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority follows: *Absolute Priority:* Under an absolute priority we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)). *Competitive Preference Priority:* Under a competitive preference priority we give competitive preference to an application by either

(1)awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR 75.105 (c)(2)(i)); or

(2)selecting an application that meets the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). *Invitational Priority:* Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)). Priorities Proposed Priority for Category 1 Applicants To help ensure that the activities supported under Category 1 (technical assistance in making informed decisions) of the CSR Quality Initiatives program best address the needs of States, districts and schools, the Assistant Secretary proposes the following priority: The grantee will provide assistance to States, LEAs and schools in selecting a comprehensive school reform provider or developing comprehensive school reforms for schools that are identified as being in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. The applicant will provide a plan for providing States, LEAs and schools with information tools and technical assistance in such areas as using data to identify the instructional needs of students and to clarify the technical assistance and professional development needs of teachers and administrators. Proposed Priority for Category 1 Applicants For Category 1 grants, the statute requires that the awards be matched with funds from private organizations. In response to this requirement, the Assistant Secretary proposes the following priority: The applicant must demonstrate, in its grant application, that its CSR Quality Initiative award will be matched with funds from one or more private organizations. For each year that a grantee receives a CSR Quality Initiative award, the match, including any in-kind contributions, must total at least 10 percent of the award. Proposed Priority for Category 2 Applicants To help ensure that all children meet challenging State academic content and academic achievement standards, the Assistant Secretary proposes the following priority for Category 2 applicants: The applicant will implement activities to:

(1)Develop and field-test specific instructional strategies to meet the needs of students who have been traditionally underserved by comprehensive reform providers, such as students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency and to integrate those strategies into scientifically research-based comprehensive school reforms, or

(2)increase the capacity of comprehensive reform providers to serve students in rural areas. These strategies or capacities could be additions or enhancements to existing CSR models or services already being provided. Proposed Priority for Category 1 and 2 Applicants The Assistant Secretary proposes the following priority for Category 1 and Category 2 grants: The grantee will assist LEAs in more than one State. Executive Order 12866 This notice of proposed priorities has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed priorities are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently to provide the most benefits for the greatest number of students. In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed priorities, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priorities justify the costs. We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions. *Summary of potential costs and benefits:* The potential costs associated with these proposed priorities are minimal, while the benefits are significant. Grantees may anticipate costs associated with completing the application process in terms of staff time, copying, and mailing or delivery. The use of e-Application technology reduces mailing and copying costs significantly. The benefits of the CSR Quality Initiatives projects are in helping low-performing schools make AYP. These proposed priorities will generate new strategies for schools, districts, and States so that all students are able to meet challenging State academic content and student achievement standards. Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister* . To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. You may also view this document in text at the Applicant Information link of the following site: *http://www.ed.gov/programs/compreform* . Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html* (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.322B Comprehensive School Reform—Quality Initiatives) Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6518. Dated: November 26, 2004. Raymond Simon, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. [FR Doc. E4-3404 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Notice of arbitration panel decision under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. SUMMARY: The Department gives notice that on July 26, 2002, an arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of *Kentucky Department for the Blind* v. *U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army (Docket No. R-S/01-11).* This panel was convened by the U.S. Department of Education, under 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after the Department received a complaint filed by the petitioner, the Kentucky Department for the Blind. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the full text of the arbitration panel decision from Suzette E. Haynes, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 5022, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone:

(202)245-7374. If you use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( *e.g.* , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the **Federal Register** a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property. Background This dispute concerns the alleged noncompliance with the Act by the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army (the Army), regarding its cancellation of a food service contract at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, operated by the Kentucky Department for the Blind, the State licensing agency (SLA), in violation of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 *et seq.* ) and the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395. A summary of the facts is as follows: On February 15, 1996, the SLA was awarded a contract to provide full food services in the military dining facilities at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. Following the contract award, the SLA appointed a qualified Randolph-Sheppard vendor to perform the contract requirements. Subsequently, the vendor entered into a joint venture contract agreement with First Choice Food Service to assume the contractual obligations. On January 21, 2000, at the end of the third option period for the food service contract at Ft. Campbell, the SLA contacted the Army to request that both parties enter into negotiations for the continuation of the food service contract. The Army did not respond to this initial request. Then on August 9, 2000, both parties met to discuss continuation of the food service contract, but this meeting did not result in a negotiated contract. Later in March 2001, the SLA alleged that, without explanation, the Army discontinued the SLA's contract effective April 1, 2001. The SLA further alleged that, despite repeated requests to negotiate the Ft. Campbell food service contract with the Army, there was no communication until June 20, 2001, when an Army contracting officer posted a solicitation announcement in Commerce Business Daily

(CBD)for provision of the dining facility attendant services at Ft. Campbell. The procurement was limited to Small Business Administration

(SBA)certified personnel. On July 25, 2001, the Governor of Kentucky wrote to the Secretary of the Army requesting that the Army reconsider its decision to exclude the SLA from competing for the contract to provide dining facility attendant services at Ft. Campbell. The Army did not respond to the Governor's letter. On August 14, 2001, the Army amended its CBD announcement. On August 24, the Army issued a solicitation stating that the procurement was to be administered by an SBA 8(a) set-aside contractor. The SLA alleged that, as the result of a recent court case, *NISH and Goodwill Services, Inc.* v. *Cohen,* 95 F. Supp.2d 497, 503-04 (E.D. Va. 2000), military dining facilities have been determined to come within the definition of cafeteria under the Act. The SLA further maintained that neither the Act nor its implementing regulations differentiate between the performance of “full food services” or “dining facility attendant services” in military dining facilities. In fact, it was the SLA's position that dining facility attendant services and full food services constitute cafeteria operations under the Act. Therefore, the SLA alleged that the Army's refusal to allow the SLA to renegotiate its food service contract at Ft. Campbell demonstrated the Army's unwillingness to comply with the Act and its implementing regulations. As a result of this dispute, the SLA requested the Secretary of Education to convene a Federal arbitration panel to hear this complaint. A panel was convened, and a hearing on this matter was held on May 13, 2002. Arbitration Panel Decision The arbitration panel heard the following issue: whether the Army's alleged failure to negotiate with the SLA in good faith for the full food services and dining facility attendant services contract at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, constituted a violation of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 *et seq.* ) and the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395. After considering the evidence presented, the majority of the panel ruled that the Act clearly covers all types of food service operations including military troop dining facilities. The panel stated that the Army's provision of cooks for the dining facility at Ft. Campbell did not mandate the exclusion of the SLA from the opportunity to provide other services. Further, the panel found that the Army's issuance of a new solicitation amounted to a limitation on the placement or operation of vending facility services on Federal property as provided by the Act. The panel also noted that the Act states that Federal agencies may give priority to SLAs through direct negotiation whenever a vending facility can be provided at a reasonable cost with food of a high quality, comparable to that currently provided. Accordingly, the panel ruled that the Army failed to present any evidence that it complied with the requirements of the Act and the implementing regulations prior to excluding the SLA from its procurement for food services at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. Therefore, the panel ruled that the Army should engage in direct negotiations with the SLA for its dining facility attendant services requirement at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. One panel member dissented. The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education. Electronic Access to This Document You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the **Federal Register** , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the following site: *www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.* To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at

(202)512-1530. Note: The official version of this document is the document published in the **Federal Register** . Free Internet access to the official edition of the **Federal Register** and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at: *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.* Dated: November 24, 2004. Troy R. Justesen, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. E4-3400 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Revision of the Record of Decision for a Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel AGENCY: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. ACTION: Revision of a record of decision. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in consultation with the Department of State, has decided to revise its Record of Decision

(ROD)for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel, issued on May 13, 1996 (61 FR 15902, May 17, 1996). That decision established the U. S. Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor

(FRR)Spent Nuclear Fuel

(SNF)(hereinafter referred to as the “Acceptance Policy”), which provides for DOE acceptance of SNF containing uranium enriched in the United States from research reactors located in 41 countries. Under the current Acceptance Policy, only material of U.S. origin that is irradiated and discharged from reactors before May 13, 2006, is eligible for acceptance. Eligible SNF can be accepted through May 12, 2009. DOE has decided to extend the Acceptance Program for an additional 10 years, until May 12, 2016, for irradiation of eligible fuel, and until May 12, 2019, for fuel acceptance. DOE will also accept a small number of SNF elements from a reactor in Australia scheduled to be commissioned after 2005 to replace a reactor currently eligible for the acceptance program, and analyzed in the FRR SNF Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). With less than 2 years remaining until the expiration date for irradiation of eligible fuel and less than 5 years remaining for fuel acceptance, DOE has received only about 35 percent of the material eligible for return as estimated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel (FRR SNF EIS, DOE/EIS-0218, February 1996), on which the ROD was based. This is because some countries with eligible fuel have not used their fuel as rapidly as projected in 1996, some countries have made alternative spent fuel processing arrangements, and there have been technical delays in the development of new low-enriched uranium

(LEU)fuels to enable research reactors to convert from high-enriched uranium (HEU), which can be used to create nuclear weapons. DOE prepared a Supplement Analysis for the FRR SNF EIS, in accordance with DOE National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). This analysis evaluated the potential health and environmental impacts of extending the program for 5 and 10 years, and of including a small number of additional fuel elements from the Australian Replacement Research Reactor (RRR). The analysis concluded that, although there could be very small increases in health impacts such as from SNF transportation over the extended period, these increases would not significantly change the results reported in the FRR SNF EIS. Accordingly, DOE has determined that a supplement to the FRR SNF EIS is not required. ADDRESSES: For copies of the Supplement Analysis, or for further information about the FRR SNF Acceptance Program, contact: Catherine R. Mendelsohn, Acting Director, Office of Global Nuclear Material Threat Reduction, Office of Global Threat Reduction, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, NA-21, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20585,

(202)586-0275, fax:

(202)586-6789, *kasia.mendelsohn@hq.doe.gov.* The Supplement Analysis and related information will be available on DOE's NEPA web site at *http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/* and in the DOE Public Reading Room as follows: U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 1E-190, Washington, DC 20585,

(202)586-5955. The Public Reading Room is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday to Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the FRR SNF Acceptance Policy and program, contact Ms. Catherine R. Mendelsohn at the address or telephone number provided above. Information on the DOE NEPA process may be requested from: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Ms. Borgstrom may be contacted by telephone at

(202)586-4600 or by leaving a message at

(800)472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background DOE issued a ROD on May 13, 1996 (61 FR 25092, May 17, 1996), based on the FRR SNF EIS (DOE/EIS-0218, February 1996), for which the U.S. Department of State was a cooperating agency, stating that DOE would accept FRR SNF containing uranium that was enriched in the United States from 107 research reactors located in 41 countries. The ROD further stated that only SNF that is irradiated and discharged from eligible reactors before May 12, 2006, can be accepted. This SNF can be accepted in the United States through May 12, 2009. From May 1996, when the FRR SNF ROD was issued, to the present, only about 35 percent of the SNF estimated in the FRR SNF EIS to be eligible for the acceptance program has been received. Most of the accepted FRR SNF elements are aluminum-based spent fuel currently stored at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The remaining FRR SNF is Training, Research, Isotope, General Atomics spent fuel stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). All of the FRR SNF will ultimately be disposed of at a geologic repository. As of November 2004, 30 shipments of FRR SNF have been received in the United States. Of these 30 shipments, 1 shipment arrived at the Concord Naval Weapons Station in California, and was transported to INEEL. Two shipments entered overland through Canada and were sent to SRS. The remaining 27 shipments arrived at the Charleston Naval Weapons Station in South Carolina, with 5 of these shipments going to INEEL and 22 shipments going to SRS. No accidents involving FRR SNF have occurred, and no shipment received under the Acceptance Program has resulted in a release of radioactive material from a cask containing FRR SNF. Approximately 2 years remain until the Acceptance Policy's expiration date for irradiation of eligible fuel and 5 years remain for acceptance of eligible FRR SNF. DOE has received only about 35 percent of the total SNF elements estimated in 1996 because some countries with eligible fuel have not used their fuel as rapidly as projected in 1996, some countries have made alternative spent fuel processing arrangements, and there have been technical delays in the development of new low-enriched uranium

(LEU)fuels to enable research reactors to convert from high-enriched uranium (HEU), which can be used to create nuclear weapons. The current Acceptance Policy applies only to reactors that were operational in May 1996, when the Policy was established. Although the High Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR) has been operational since 1958 and is eligible to participate in the acceptance program, this reactor has been scheduled since 1997 for decommissioning in 2006. The HIFAR is expected to have used all of its fuel by that time. Australia's Research Replacement Reactor (RRR), scheduled for commissioning in 2005, will assume the HIFAR research and medical isotope activities. In effect, the RRR represents a conversion from the HEU used in the HIFAR to a new type of LEU fuel that can be processed by non-U.S. facilities. The delays in developing this new fuel will mean, however, that the RRR must use a currently available type of LEU fuel until approximately 2012. It is expected that SNF resulting from the irradiation of the currently available LEU fuel would need to be managed in the United States and would add a small number of fuel elements, approximately 96 elements, to the 1996 total estimate of approximately 22,700 elements. All of the Australian SNF would be managed at SRS until disposal is available at a geologic repository. Purpose and Need for Action Reducing the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a foremost goal of the United States. To continue to meet DOE's objective of reducing, and eventually eliminating, HEU of U.S. origin from civil commerce worldwide, DOE needs to extend its FRR SNF Acceptance Policy to allow additional time for eligible material to be returned to the United States and to allow SNF elements from an Australian reactor commissioned after 2005 to replace a reactor currently eligible for the acceptance program and analyzed in the original FRR SNF EIS. Proposed Action DOE and the U.S. Department of State propose to revise the FRR SNF Acceptance Program by: • Extending the expiration date for irradiation of eligible spent for 10 years, from May 12, 2006, to May 12, 2016; • Extending the acceptance date for eligible spent fuel 10 years, from May 12, 2009, to May 12, 2019; and • Extending eligibility to Australia's RRR for participation in the Acceptance Program. The amount of potentially eligible SNF would remain at approximately 20 metric tonnes of heavy metal total. Target material (fuel for isotope production such as Technetium-99) and damaged spent fuel also received under the Acceptance Program currently can be treated in H-Canyon at SRS. However, current plans call for H-Canyon facilities to be maintained in operable condition through 2010 pending a review of the facility. While target material and damaged SNF can be accepted under the current Acceptance Policy, the material would not be accepted if H-Canyon is unavailable after 2010 to prepare the target material and damaged fuel for disposal. If SNF were to be damaged once it arrived in the United States and H-Canyon were not available, DOE would repackage or otherwise prepare the fuel and safely store it pending disposal. NEPA Review DOE prepared a Supplement Analysis in accordance with DOE NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021) to determine whether a supplement to the FRR SNF EIS is needed for the proposed action. The analysis evaluated the potential health and environmental impacts of extending the program for 5 and 10 years, and of including the small number of additional fuel elements from the RRR. The analysis concluded that although there could be very small increases in health impacts such as from SNF transportation over the extended period, these increases would not significantly change the results reported in the FRR SNF EIS. Accordingly, DOE has determined that there are no substantial changes to the proposed action analyzed in the FRR SNF EIS or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns resulting from the extension of the Acceptance Policy. As referenced in the Supplement Analysis, the onsite management of SNF at INEEL and SRS was addressed in the Programmatic SNF and INEEL Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0203, Volumes 1 and 2, 1995) and the Savannah River Site Spent Fuel Management Final EIS (DOE/EIS-0279, 2000). The onsite impacts identified for those sites would not be changed by the extension of the Acceptance Policy. Transportation impacts from INEEL and SRS to the geologic repository as analyzed in the Final EIS for a *Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye, County, Nevada,* (DOE/EIS-250, 2002) are also unchanged by the extension. Decision DOE has decided to extend the FRR SNF Acceptance Policy for an additional 10 years beyond its current expiration, until May 12, 2016, for irradiation of eligible fuel, and until May 12, 2019, for fuel acceptance. DOE has also decided to include the Australian RRR as a reactor eligible to participate in the acceptance program. For the small amount of RRR fuel that would be added to 1996 estimates, DOE will continue limitations on shipment cask curie activity and will ensure that the upper limit estimate for the source term assumed in the FRR SNF EIS accident analysis will not be exceeded. DOE's decision furthers the nonproliferation objectives of the United States. The extension of the Acceptance Policy is expected to provide sufficient time for reactors to complete their planned shipments, to complete development, testing, qualification and fabrication of new LEU fuels which could be used by the RRR and other reactors, and to provide time for reactors to convert to the new LEU fuels or make alternative fuel management arrangements. Issued in Washington, DC on November 22, 2004. Linton F. Brooks, Under Secretary and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration. [FR Doc. 04-26470 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 6

Traces to 6 documents

CFR