### 43159 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices

consideration for preservation as a national historic site. Although KE and KW Reactors have had CERCLA documentation issued that identified ISS as the preferred alternative, the KE and KW reactors are not currently in ISS. However, they are the next reactors in the queue for completion of ISS.

II. Decision

DOE has decided to broaden the decommissioning approach for these eight surplus reactors. DOE is retaining the deferred one-piece removal option, as selected in the 1993 ROD, and, based on a recently prepared Supplement Analysis, is modifying the deferred dismantlement option, as expressed in the Final EIS, by selecting an option for immediate dismantlement.

Activities to implement this decision will be conducted as CERCLA non-time critical removal actions. Specific details on unit operations of dismantlement will be addressed in the CERCLA documentation. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been incorporated in this decision.

III. Basis for the Decision

In accordance with CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)) and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314(c)), DOE prepared a Supplement Analysis to determine whether a supplemental EIS or a new EIS is required. The Supplement Analysis focused on the resource areas and considerations most likely to be affected by this amended ROD; specifically, worker radiological impacts (routine operations and accident conditions), land use, historical/cultural resources, ecological resources, and cumulative impacts.

Preliminary calculations (based on near-term dismantlement of the KE reactor core and extrapolated to all eight surplus production reactors) indicate that worker dose under a dismantlement scenario for all eight reactors (approximately 80 person-rem) would be expected to be substantially less than that projected in the Final EIS (532 person-rem) for deferred dismantlement, and slightly higher than that fordeferred one-piece removal (51 personrem in the safe storage/deferred onepiece removal scenario). The actual dose rates to which workers would be exposed would be controlled by such means as remote handling, use of robotics, and the use of shielding. Worker radiation exposure would be controlled to stay within administrative and regulatory limits. Regardless, less than one latent cancer fatality (LCF) would be expected under all of the alternatives. No new bounding accident scenarios associated with reactor decommissioning have been identified; less than one LCF would be expected as a result of any postulated bounding accident.

No new land use, historical/cultural resource, or ecological resources impacts were identified in the Supplement Analysis relevant to decommissioning activities under deferred one-piece removal or immediate dismantlement.

Also, as stated in the Supplement Analysis, no short-term or long-term cumulative impacts (based on the analyses presented in DOE/EIS–0391, Draft Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement) were identified relevant todecommissioning activities under onepiece removal or dismantlement.

In evaluating the viability of supporting accelerated decommissioning of surplus reactor facilities in a safe and environmentally effective manner, DOE also considered technological advances and additional information since the Final EIS and the 1993 ROD were issued. New engineering controls (such as development and deployment of robotics in an array of field applications), data collection and validation, worker safety practices, and real-time lessons learned from reactor demolition activities at Brookhaven National Laboratory all could be applied to accelerated surplus reactor decommissioning at the Hanford Site. These controls and information would enable accelerated decommissioning activities to be conducted safely.

IV. Determination

DOE has decided to broaden the decommissioning approach for the surplus reactors, retaining the deferred one-piece removal option and adding an option for immediate dismantlement. Based on the Supplement Analysis, this is not a substantial change in the proposed action relevant to environmental concerns. Further, there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed actions or their impacts described in the Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS. Therefore, DOE has determined that neither a new EIS, nor a supplement to the Surplus Production Reactors EIS, is required.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 16, 2010.

Ine

 ́ s R. Triay, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 2010–18079 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6450–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY** 

**Notice of Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment as a Member of the**  **Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee;**  **Correction**

**AGENCY :**  Department of Energy.

**ACTION :**  Notice of solicitation of members; correction.

**SUMMARY :**  On July 15, 2010, the Department of Energy published a notice of solicitation of members (75 FR 41166). This document corrects that notice.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Laura McCann, Designated Federal Official for the Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–7766; e-mail: laura.mccann@ee.doe.gov or Christina Fagerholm at (202) 586–2933; e-mail: christina.fagerholm@ee.doe.gov

.

In the Federal Register of July 15, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010–17285, on page 41167, please make the following correction:

Under **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**
, first column, the second to the last paragraph is corrected to read:

‘‘Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. Please note, however, that registered lobbyists and individuals already serving on another Federal Advisory Committee are ineligible for nomination. ’’

The deadline for Technical Advisory Committee member nominations is July 30, 2010.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 20, 2010. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–18127 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6450–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY**

**Energy Information Administration**

**Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB**  **Review; Comment Request**

**AGENCY :**  U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Department of Energy (DOE).

**ACTION :**  Agency information collection activities: Submission for OMB review; comment request.

**SUMMARY :**  The EIA has submitted the Energy Information Administration’s


### 43160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey to the Office of Management andBudget (OMB) for review and a threeyear extension under section 3507(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

**DATES :**  Comments must be filed by August 23, 2010. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within that period, you should contact the OMB Desk Officer for DOE listed below as soon as possible.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send comments to OMB Desk Officer for DOE, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202–395– 7285) or e-mail to Christine

_ J.

_Kymn@omb.eop.gov is recommended. The mailing address is 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. The OMB Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395–4638. (A copy of your comments should also be provided to EIA’s Statistics and Methods Group at the address below.)

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Requests for additional information should be directed to Alethea Jennings. To ensure receipt of the comments by the due date, submission by FAX (202– 586–5271) or e-mail ( alethea.jennings@eia.doe.gov ) is also recommended. The mailing address is Statistics and Methods Group (EI–70), Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585–0670. Ms. Jennings may be contacted by telephone at (202) 586–5879.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor ( i.e.

, the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request ( i.e.

, new, revision, extension or reinstatement); (5) response obligation ( i.e. , mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; (8) estimated number of respondents and (9) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden ( i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).

1. Form EIA–846, ‘‘Manufacturers Energy Consumption Survey. ’’

2. Energy Information Administration. 3. OMB Number 1905–0169. 4. Three-year extension to an existing approved request.

5. Mandatory. 6. Form EIA–846 will be used to collect data on energy consumption and related subjects for the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy. In addition to being used for the National Energy Modeling System, the MECS is used to augment a database on the manufacturing sector. Respondents are manufacturing establishments.

7. Business or other for-profit. 8. 15,500. 9. 47,584 (15,500 respondents × 1
response per year × 9.21 hours per response). With a three-year approval,the burden is prorated over the threeyear period and averaged from a total of 142,751 hours.

Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the **FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATION CONTACT** section.

Statutory Authority: Sec. 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93–275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b).

Issued in Washington, DC, July 19, 2010. Stephanie Brown, Director, Statistics and Methods Group, Energy Information Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–18080 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6450–01–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[FRL–9179–3 ]**

**Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Final Agency Action on One Arkansas Total**  **Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice of availability.

**SUMMARY :**  This notice announces the final agency action on one TMDL established by EPA Region 6 for waters listed in the State of Arkansas, under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This TMDL was completed in response to the lawsuit styled Sierra Club, et al. v. Clifford, et al., No. LR– C–99–114. Documents from the administrative record file for the final one TMDL, including TMDL calculations may be viewed at http:// www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/ tmdl/index.htm

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Diane Smith at (214) 665–2145. EPA Takes Final Agency Action on One TMDL

By this notice EPA is taking final agency action on the following TMDL for waters located within the State of Arkansas:

Segment-reach Waterbody name Pollutant

11070208–901 ........................................................................ Town Branch .......................................................................... Total Phosphorus.

EPA requested the public to provide EPA with any significant data or information that might impact the
TMDL at Federal Register Notice: Volume 75, Number 74, pages 20351 and 20352 (April 19, 2010). Comments were received, and the EPA’s response to comments and the Final TMDL may be found at http://www.epa.gov/region6/ water/npdes/tmdl/index.htm

. Dated: July 15, 2010. Claudia V. Hosch, Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010–18090 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY**

**[ER–FRL–8991–6]**

**Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability** 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202)

564–1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/.