31898 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Notices

reasonably required. Any chemical

covered by TSCA for which EPA or

another Federal Agency has a

reasonable need for information and

which cannot be satisfied via other

sources is a proper potential subject for

a chemical-specific TSCA section 8(a)

rulemaking. Information that may be

collected under TSCA section 8(a)

includes, but is not limited to, chemical

names, categories of use, production

volume, byproducts of chemical

production, existing data on deaths and

environmental effects, exposure data,

and disposal information. Generally,

EPA uses chemical-specific information

under TSCA section 8(a) to evaluate the

potential for adverse human health and

environmental effects caused by the

manufacture, importation, processing,

use, or disposal of identified chemical

substances and mixtures. Additionally,

EPA may use TSCA section 8(a)

information to assess the need or set

priorities for testing and/or further

regulatory action. To the extent that

reported information is not considered

confidential, environmental groups,

environmental justice advocates, state

and local government entities and other

members of the public will also have

access to this information for their own

use.

Responses to the collection of

information are mandatory (see 40 CFR

part 704). Respondents may claim all or

part of a notice confidential. EPA will

disclose information that is covered by

a claim of confidentiality only to the

extent permitted by, and in accordance

with, the procedures in TSCA section 14

and 40 CFR part 2.

V. What are EPA’s Burden and Cost

Estimates for this ICR?

Under the PRA, ‘‘burden’’ means the

total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide

information to or for a Federal Agency.

For this collection it includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

The ICR provides a detailed

explanation of this estimate, which is

only briefly summarized in this notice.

The annual public burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average about 69 hours per response.

The following is a summary of the

estimates taken from the ICR:

Respondents/affected entities: 4.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total/average number of

responses for each respondent: 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours:

275.

Estimated total annual burden costs:

$0.

VI. Are There Changes in the Estimates

from the Last Approval?

There are no changes in the burden

estimates since the last approval of this

ICR.

VII. What is the Next Step in the

Process for this ICR?

EPA will consider the comments

received and amend the ICR as

appropriate. The final ICR package will

then be submitted to OMB for review

and approval pursuant to 5 CFR

1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal

Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR

1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the

submission of the ICR to OMB and the

opportunity to submit additional

comments to OMB. If you have any

questions about this ICR or the approval

process, please contact the technical

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 11, 2000.

Susan H. Wayland,

Acting Assistant Administrator for

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 00–12648 Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6607–3]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 or www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements

Filed May 08, 2000

Through May 12, 2000 Pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 000139, Draft EIS, NPS, CA, NV,

Legislative EIS—Timbisha Shoshone

Tribal Homeland, To Establish a

Permanent Tribal Land Base and

Related Cooperative Activities, The

Transfer of Federal Land and

Acquisition of Private Land, Death

Valley National Park, Saline Valley,

CA and Lida Ranch near Lida, NV,

Due: July 19, 2000, Contact: Alan

Schmierer (415) 427–1441.

EIS No. 000140, Final EIS, BLM, WY,

Horse Creek Coal Lease Application

(Federal Coal Lease Application

WYW–141435), Implementation,

Campbell and Converse Counties,

WY, Due: June 19, 2000, Contact:

Nancy Doelger (307) 261–7627.

EIS No. 000141, Draft EIS, AFS, Forest

Service Roadless Area Conservation,

Implementation, Proposal to Protect

Roadless Areas, In addition, the

Agency is proposing special

consideration for the Tongass

National Forest, Due: July 03, 2000,

Contact: Scott Conroy (703) 605–5299.

EIS No. 000142, Draft EIS, FHW, NV,

Reno Railroad Corridor,

Implementation of the Freight

Railroad Grade Separation

Improvements in the Central Portion

of the City of Reno, Washoe County,

NV, Due: July 03, 2000, Contact: John

T. Price (775) 687–1204.

EIS No. 000143, Final EIS, UAF, FL,

Tyndall Air Force Base,

Implementation, Proposed Conversion

of Two F–15 Fighter Squadrons to F–

22 Fighter Squadons, FL, Due: June

19, 2000, Contact: Herman Bell (850)

283–8572.

EIS No. 000144, Final EIS, SFW, CA,

High Desert Power Project,

Construction and Operation, A

Combined-Cycle Natural Gas-Fueled

Electrical Generation Power Planet,

Approval of Incidental Take Permit

Authorization under Sections 7 and

10 of the Federal ESA, San

Bernardino County, CA, Due: June 19,

2000, Contact: George Walker (760)

255–8852.

EIS No. 000145, Draft Supplement,

NOA, FL, Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctury (FKNMS),

Comprehensive Management Plan,

Updated Information, Proposal to

Establish a No-Take Ecological

Reserve in the Tortugas Region, FL,

Due: July 31, 2000, Contact: Billy D.

Causey (305) 743–2437.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 000101, Draft EIS, FAA, NC,

Piedmont Triad International Airport,

Construction and Operation, Runway

5L/23R and New Overnight Express

Air Cargo Sorting and Distribution

Facility, and Associated

Developments, Funding, NPDES and

COE Section 404 Permit, City of

Greensboro, Guilford County, NC,

Due: June 07, 2000, Contact: Donna

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Notices 31899

M. Meyer (404) 305–7150. Revision of

FR notice published on 04/14/2000:

CEQ Comment Date corrected from

05/30/2000 to 06/07/2000.

EIS No. 000135, Draft Supplement, NPS,

MS, Natchez Trace Parkway, Update

Information on the Construction of

Section 3P13 (Old Agency Road), City

of Ridgeland, Madison County, MS,

Due: July 12, 2000, Contact: Wendall

Simpson (601) 680–4005.

Published FR 05–12–00 Correction to

Title.

Dated: May 16, 2000.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00–12680 Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6607–4]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared May 01, 2000 Through May

05, 2000 pursuant to the Environmental

Review Process (ERP), under Section

309 of the Clean Air Act and Section

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act as amended. Requests for

copies of EPA comments can be directed

to the Office of Federal Activities at

(202) 564–7167. An explanation of the

ratings assigned to draft environmental

impact statements (EISs) was published

in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR

20157).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–FAA–B51019–RI Rating

EC2, T. F. Green Airport Project, To

Implement the Part 150 Noise

Abatement Procedures in a Safe and

Efficient Manner, Warwick County, RI.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding the analysis of community

noise impacts and mitigation measures

described in the DEIS.

ERP No. D–FHW–E40308–TN Rating

EC2, TN–374 (North Parkway) Project,

Construction from TN13 to TN 76 in

Clarksville, Funding, US Coast Guard

and COE Section 404 Permits,

Montgomery County, TN.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

purpose and need and potential wetland

impacts. EPA requested clarification of

these issues.

ERP No. D–FHW–F40388–WI Rating

EC2, US–14/61 Westby—Virogua

Bypass Corridor Study, Transportation

Improvements, Funding and COE

Section 404 Permit, Cities of Virogua

and Westby, Vernon County, WI.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

that the document did not provide

information on how this project relates

to plans for the Highway 14 and 61

corridors.

ERP No. D–FHW–H40167–MO Rating

EC2, US 65 Improvements, from County

Road 65–122 South to Route EE

Intersection south of Buffalo, COE

Section 404 Permit, Dallas County, MO.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding possible detrimental impacts

to drinking water supplies; lack of

cumulative and indirect impacts

analysis; and a lack of maps detailing

information addressed in the various

sections of the DEIS.

ERP No. D–FRC–K03023–00 Rating

EC2, Southern Trails Pipeline Project

(CP99–163–000), Conversion of an

Existing Crude Oil Pipeline (known as

the ARCO Four Corners Pipeline Line

90 System), Construction and

Operation, CA, AZ, UT and NM.

Summary: EPA identified some

concerns and additional analysis needs,

particularly in the area of

socioeconomics and the treatment of

environmental justice.

ERP No. D–FTA–F54012–OH Rating

EC2, Bera/I–X Center Red Line

Extension Project, Southwest Corridor

Major Investment, Transit

Improvements, Funding, Cuyahoga

County, OH.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

because of the lack of discussion

pertaining to avoidance, minimization

and mitigation of wetlands and the

insufficiency of the content and format

of noise and vibration analysis.

ERP No. D–USN–K11033–CA Rating

EC2, El Toro Marine Corps Air Station

Disposal and Reuse, Implementation,

Orange County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

that re-use activities could lead to

exceedences of applicable air quality

standards, could result in increased

water pollution, or could harm wildlife.

EPA recommended that the Navy

identify mitigation to protect wetlands,

develop a restoration alternative, and

consider an environmental management

system (EMS) to mitigate risks.

ERP No. DA–IBR–J35005–00 Rating

EC2, Animas-La Plata Project (ALP

Project), Municipal and Industrial Water

Supply, Reservoir Construction in

Ridges Basin, Implementation and

Water Acquisition Funding, Additional

Information concerning Project

Alternatives Developed in 1996 through

1997, CO NM.

Summary: EPA requested that

additional information be provided on

how the various environmental impacts

of the alternatives are being compared

and details of the proposed wetland and

habitat mitigation plan.

ERP No. DS–DOD–A11075–00 Rating

LO, National Missile Defense

Deployment (NMD) System, Upgraded

Early Warning Radar Supplement

(UEWR), To Addresses Interior

Replacement of Electronic Hardware

and Computer Software, Affected Areas

Clear Air Force Station (AFS), Denali

Borough, AK; Beale Air Force Base

(AFB), Yuba County, CA; and Cape Cod

AFS, Barnstable County, MA.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

this project.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–BOP–E80002–SC South

Carolina—Federal Correctional

Institution, Construct and Operate,

Possible Sites: Andrew, Bennettsville,

Oliver and Salters, SC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

potential wetlands impacts.

ERP No. F–FAA–B51021–MA

Provincetown Municipal Airport Safety

and Operational Enhancement Project,

Improvements (1) Firefighter Equipment

Garage; (2) General Aviation Parking

Apron Expansion; (3) Runaway Safety

Areas, and (4) a Runaway Extension,

COE Section 404 Permit, Cape Cod

National Seashore, Barnstable County,

MA.

Summary: EPA has no objections to

the recommended actions in the FEIS

but asked to be actively involved in any

NEPA reevaluation associated with any

future runway extension project at the

airport.

ERP No. F–FHW–H50001–MO MO–19

Missouri River Replacement Bridge

Project, Construction and Operation, US

Coast Guard and COE Section 404

Permits, Gasconade and Montgomery

Counties, MO.

Summary: EPA urged FHWA/MoDOT

to condition the Record of Decision for

the selection of the 5–W1 alternative

pending completion of Fish and

Wildlife Service surveys for three

endangered species.

ERP No. F–FHW–K40225–CA Marin

US–101 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)

Gap Closure Project, Construction from

US 101 I–580 on US–101 from Lucky

Drive to North San Pedro Road and I–

580 from Irene Street to US–101,

Funding, COE Section 404 and Bridge

Permits, Marin County, CA.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–FTA–K40238–CA

Downtown Sacramento—Folsom

Corridor, Improvement of Transit

Services, US 50/Folsom Boulevard,