69572 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

assess the AK process to comply with 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 194, 

section 24. EPA does not believe that 

the PFP solid wastes improperly 

emplaced at WIPP constitute a threat to 

human health, to the environment or to 

the long-term performance of the WIPP 

repository. Based on this determination, 

the Hanford PFP solid waste will remain 

in WIPP while EPA undertakes a desktop review of the AK information for the 

PFP solid wastes. 

With regard to mixed oxides, DOE has 

clarified that these materials are 

properly categorized as debris waste 

rather than as part of the PFP solid 

waste stream. Based on documentation 

provided by the DOE, we concur in this 

determination. The 900 drums of mixed 

oxides were fully characterized using 

the procedures approved by EPA for 

debris waste (S5000) in our August 7, 

2003, letter. Therefore, we find their 

characterization is adequate and no 

further action is needed to confirm that 

their placement in the WIPP is allowed. 

For the remaining 600 drums of ash 

belonging to the solid waste stream, 

further evaluation is needed to assess 

the adequacy of waste characterization 

processes. Until EPA completes its 

review of the AK process for Hanford 

PFP solids and, if warranted, approves 

the subject waste stream (S3000) for 

disposal at the WIPP, the Agency has 

directed DOE not to resume shipment of 

the remaining TRU solid waste 

containers from the Hanford PFP. 

In most cases, EPA’s inspections are 

conducted through on-site inspections 

in which the operation of WC 

equipment and processes can be 

demonstrated. However, the evaluation 

of AK relies almost exclusively on a 

review of documentation. Thus, while 

such review is often conducted on-site 

(for convenience, in conjunction with 

other on-site evaluations), it can be 

conducted at a remote location with 

equal ease and rigor. This is especially 

true for AK related to Hanford PFP 

solids. Hanford has not relied on the AK 

information for physical and 

radiological characterization of the PFP 

solids; the site relied exclusively on 

spectroscopic systems to establish 

isotopic ratios. (Isotopic ratios are 

sometime used to estimate individual 

radionuclides when the equipment is 

not able to quantify them.) Because AK 

information for the waste was not used 

to derive or extrapolate WC data tracked 

for the waste, we expect little linkage 

with other WC procedures, so there is 

no need to conduct an on-site 

inspection. By thorough inspection of 

the AK documents we can determine 

adequacy, completeness, sufficiency, 

and appropriateness of the AK used for 

waste characterization. 

For this inspection, EPA will conduct 

a desk-top review of the most recent 

versions of the AK documents 

applicable to the Hanford PFP solid 

waste that were used by the DOE 

auditors in June 2003. As necessary, 

EPA will interview by phone the 

relevant experts at Hanford PFP. 

Evaluation of the AK documentation 

pertaining to the PFP solids will be 

limited to verification of the waste 

pedigree—defense determination, S3000 

waste category determination, absence 

of liquids confirmation, and 

classification as TRU waste. This 

evaluation will allow sufficient 

evaluation of the adequacy, 

completeness, and effectiveness of the 

applicable AK process. 

Through this Federal Register notice, 

EPA is notifying the public that EPA 

will evaluate Hanford’s AK process and 

procedure specific to the PFP solid 

waste. EPA will perform an inspection 

of Hanford’s AK process for the PFP 

solid waste in accordance with 

Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification. If 

EPA determines as a result of the 

evaluation that the AK documentation is 

adequate and is well supported by the 

radioassay, radiography, and visual 

examination results, we will notify DOE 

by letter and place the letter in the 

official Air Docket in Washington, DC, 

as well as in the informational docket 

locations in New Mexico. A letter of 

approval will allow DOE to leave waste 

in WIPP underground panels and to 

resume disposal of the remaining PFP 

solid waste characterized by the 

approved processes from Hanford to 

WIPP. EPA will not make a 

determination of compliance prior to 

completing its AK documentation audit 

or before the 30-day comment period 

has closed. We have separately directed 

DOE by letter what measures or 

restrictions are necessary to prevent 

recurrence of such violations of EPA’s 

site-specific waste characterization 

requirements. This letter is available in 

Docket A–98–49 (Washington, DC, and 

our three locations in New Mexico), as 

well as online at the EDOCKET Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/edocket) in Docket 

ID No. OAR–2004–0477. 

Information on the certification 

decision is filed in the official EPA Air 

Docket, Docket No. A–93–02 and is 

available for review in Washington, DC, 

and at three EPA WIPP informational 

docket locations in New Mexico. The 

dockets in New Mexico contain only 

major items from the official Air Docket 

in Washington, DC, plus those 

documents added to the official Air 

Docket since the October 1992 

enactment of the WIPP LWA.

Dated: November 23, 2004. 

Robert Brenner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 04–26480 Filed 11–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 27 

[WT Docket No. 04–356; WT Docket No. 02–

353; FCC 04–218] 

Service Rules for Advanced Wireless 

Services in the 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–

2000 MHz, 2175–2180 MHz and 1.7 GHz 

and 2.1 GHz Bands

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

extends the period for comment and 

reply comment on the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in this 

proceeding. The deadline to file 

comments is extended from November 

23, 2004, to December 8, 2004, and the 

deadline to file reply comments is 

extended from January 7, 2005, to 

January 24, 2005. The action is taken to 

respond to two Motions for Extension of 

Time.

DATES: Comments due December 8, 

2004; reply comments due January 24, 

2005. Written comments on the 

Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 

information collection requirements 

must be submitted by the public, Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), and 

other interested parties on or before 

December 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: In addition to filing 

comments with the Secretary, a copy of 

any comments on the Paperwork 

Reduction Act information collection 

requirements contained herein should 

be submitted to Judith B. Herman, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

Room 1–C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554, or via the 

Internet to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, 

and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk 

Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 via 

the Internet to 

Kristy_L.LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, or via 

fax at 202–395–5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Corea at 202–418–2487. For 

additional information concerning the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69573

Paperwork Reduction Act information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Judith B. 

Herman at 202–418–0214, or via 

Internet at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposed rulemaking, 69 FR 63489, 

November 2, 2004, concerns a decision 

to provide additional twenty megahertz 

of spectrum that can be used to offer a 

variety of broadband and advanced 

wireless services (AWS), potentially 

including ‘‘third generation’’ (3G) 

wireless services, the Commission ask 

for public comment on licensing, 

technical, and operational rules to 

govern the use of the 1915–1920 MHz, 

1995–2000 MHz, and 2020–2025 MHz 

and 2175–2180 MHz bands designated 

for AWS. The Commission announced 

its desire to provide licensees of this 

spectrum with flexibility to provide any 

fixed or mobile service consistent with 

the technical parameters of allocation.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–26384 Filed 11–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 51

[WC Docket No. 02–78; FCC 04–252] 

Petition of Mid-Rivers Telephone 

Cooperative, Inc. for Order Declaring It 

To Be an Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carrier in Terry, MT Pursuant to 

Section 251(h)(2)

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) solicits comment 

on the application of section 251(h)(2) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, regarding the reclassification 

of competitive local exchange carriers 

(LECs) to incumbent LECs. Mid-Rivers 

Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (MidRivers) filed a petition to be classified 

as an incumbent LEC. The Commission 

makes tentative conclusions addressing 

Mid-Rivers petition in part and poses 

questions concerning the application of 

section 251(h)(2) in Mid-Rivers case, as 

well as other similar cases.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

December 30, 2004, and reply comments 

are due on or before January 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further 

filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian 

Dillner, Attorney, Competition Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at (202) 418–1191, or at 

Ian.Dillner@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 

02–78, adopted October 21, 2004, and 

released November 15, 2004 (NPRM). 

The complete text of this NPRM is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. This 

document may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov.

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. All filings should refer to WC 

Docket No. 02–78. Comments filed 

through ECFS can be sent as an 

electronic file via the Internet at

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.

Only one copy of an electronic 

submission must be filed. In completing 

the transmittal screen, commenters 

should include their full name, postal 

service mailing address, and the 

applicable docket number, which in this 

instance is WC Docket No. 02–78. 

Parties may also submit an electronic 

comment by Internet e-mail. To get 

filing instructions for e-mail comments, 

commenters should send an e-mail to 

ecfshelp@fcc.gov, and should include 

the following words in the regarding 

line of the message: ‘‘get form<your email address>.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in reply. 

Parties who choose to file by paper 

must file an original and four copies of 

each filing. Parties filing by paper must 

also send three (3) courtesy copies to the 

attention of Janice M. Myles, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Competition 

Policy Division, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Suite 5–C327, Washington, DC 20554, or 

via e-mail janice.myles@fcc.gov. Paper 

filings and courtesy copies must be 

delivered in the following manner. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). 

The Commission’s contractor, Natek, 

Inc., will receive hand-delivered or 

messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. This facility is the 

only location where hand-delivered or 

messenger-delivered paper filings or 

courtesy copies for the Commission’s 

Secretary and Commission staff will be 

accepted. Commercial overnight mail 

(other than U.S. Postal Service Express 

Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 

9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol 

Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service 

first-class mail, Express Mail, and 

Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

All filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Each comment and reply comment 

must include a short and concise 

summary of the substantive arguments 

raised in the pleading. Comments and 

reply comments must also comply with 

section 1.48 and all other applicable 

sections of the Commission’s rules. We 

direct all interested parties to include 

the name of the filing party and the date 

of the filing on each page of their 

comments and reply comments. All 

parties are encouraged to utilize a table 

of contents, regardless of the length of 

their submission. 

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. Background. Mid-Rivers Telephone 

Cooperative, Inc. (Mid-Rivers), a 

competitive LEC in the Terry, Montana 

exchange, filed a petition with the 

Commission requesting classification as 

an incumbent LEC in the Terry 

exchange pursuant to section 251(h)(2) 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act or Communication 

Act). This provision allows the 

Commission to determine ‘‘by rule’’ to 

treat a competitive LEC as an incumbent 

LEC if it satisfies a three-prong test: (1) 

The carrier occupies a market position 

comparable to an incumbent LEC; (2) 

the carrier has ‘‘substantially replaced’’

an incumbent LEC, and; (3) the 

reclassification serves the public 

interest, convenience, and necessity. 47 

U.S.C. 251(h)(2). 

2. Mid-Rivers, also an incumbent LEC 

in a nearby exchange, filed this petition 

as a result of its success in acquiring 

approximately 93 percent of the access