63330 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices

that such accumulation is performed

responsibly. EPA also requires certain

universal waste handlers to track receipt

of universal waste shipments as well as

shipments sent off-site to ensure that

universal waste is properly treated,

recycled, and disposed. Finally, the

submission of petitions in support of

regulating other wastes or waste

categories under part 273 helps EPA (1)

to compile information on these wastes,

and (2) to determine whether regulation

as a universal waste is appropriate.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

EPA would like to solicit comments

to:

(I) evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(iv) minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The estimated

number of likely respondents under this

collection of information is 79,510

(78,973 Small Quantity Handlers of

Universal Wastes (SQHUWs), 485

LQHUWs, and 52 Destination

Facilities). The bottom line annual

reporting and recordkeeping burden to

respondents under this collection of

information is 122,674 hours. The

average annual public reporting burden

per response for SQHUWs under this

collection of information is 0 hours. The

average annual public reporting burden

per response for LQHUWs is estimated

to range from 0 to 2.41 hours. The

average annual public reporting burden

per response for destination facilities is

estimated to range from 0 to 2.41 hours.

The average annual recordkeeping

burden per response for SQHUWs under

this collection of information is

estimated to range from 1.12 to 1.62

hours. The average annual

recordkeeping burden per response for

LQHUWs is estimated to range from

5.82 to 6.82 hours. The average annual

recordkeeping burden per response for

destination facilities is estimated to be

115.37 hours. The total average annual

burden cost for universal waste

handlers, universal waste petitioners,

and destination facilities is: $5,303,419

in labor costs; $1,212 in capital costs;

and $244.25 in annual O&M costs (O&M

costs include a purchase of service

component). 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.

This 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.

Dated: November 20, 1997.

Elizabeth Cotsworth,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 97–31271 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5928–4]

Request for Nominations to North

American Free Trade Agreement– and

U.S.–Mexico Border–Related

Environmental Advisory Committees

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of request for

nominations.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) is inviting

nominations to fill vacancies on two

national advisory committees: the

Governmental Advisory Committee to

the U.S. Representative to the North

American Commission for

Environmental Cooperation and the

Good Neighbor Environmental Board.

The Agency is seeking qualified senior

level decision makers from diverse

sectors to be considered for

appointments. Nominees for the

Governmental Advisory Committee may

come from state, local or tribal

government entities anywhere in the

U.S. Nominees for the Good Neighbor

Environmental Board must come from

governmental or nongovernmental

entities in the states of Arizona,

California, New Mexico or Texas.

DATES: Nominations will be accepted

until close of business December 12,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to: Mr.

Robert Hardaker, Team Leader for

Environment and Trade, Office of

Cooperative Environmental

Management, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1601-F, 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hardaker, Designated Federal

Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1601-F, Washington, DC 20460;

telephone (202) 260–2477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These two

committees are Federal advisory

committees operating under the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, PL 92–463.

The Governmental Advisory

Committee (GAC) advises the U.S.

Government Representative to the North

American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) Commission on

Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The

Commission on Environmental

Cooperation (composed of the heads of

the environmental agencies for Canada,

Mexico and the U.S.; a Secretariat

headquartered in Montreal, Canada; and

a Joint Public Advisory Committee

composed of members of the public

from each country) was established to

protect the North American

environment and support the

environmental goals of NAFTA. NAFTA

also authorized each country to

establish two public advisory

committees to advise its representative

to the CEC. The U.S. Governmental

Advisory Committee (GAC) is composed

of 10 representatives of state, local and

tribal governments. The counterpart

U.S. National Advisory Committee is

composed of 12 representatives of

nongovernmental organizations. USEPA

is not currently soliciting for

membership on the National Advisory

Committee.

The Good Neighbor Environmental

Board, created under the Enterprise for

the Americas Initiative Act of 1992,

advises the President and the Congress

on approaches to sustainable

development for the U.S.–Mexico

border region that address

environmental, natural resources,

health, transportation, housing, and

economic development issues, and that

promote coordination of governmental

activities along the U.S.–Mexico border.

The Board consists of representatives

from nongovernmental organizations,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Notices 63331

industry, academia, and state and local

governments in the States of Arizona,

California, New Mexico and Texas, as

well as from eight U.S. Government

agencies.

Members of these committees are

appointed by the Administrator of

USEPA for a term of one year with the

possibility of reappointment. The

Committees meet at least twice

annually.

Nominations for membership must

include a resume and short biography

describing the educational and

professional qualifications of the

nominee and the nominee’s current

business address and daytime telephone

number.

Dated: November 14, 1997.

Greg Kenyon,

Acting Designated Federal Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–31276 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER-FRL–5486–7]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 OR (202) 564–7153.

Weekly receipt of Environmental

Impact Statements Filed November 17,

1997 Through November 21, 1997

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 970452, Final EIS, DOE, NY,

Disposal of the Defueled S3G and D1G

Prototype Reactor Plants,

Implementation, Located at the Knolls

Atomic Power Laboratory Kesselring

Site near West Milton, Saratoga

County, NY, Due: December 29, 1997,

Contact: Andrew S. Baitinger (518)

884–1234.

EIS No. 970453, Final EIS, MMS, AL,

LA, MS, TX, Central Planning Area,

Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental

Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales 169,

172, 175, 178 and 182, Lease Offering,

Offshore Marine Environment and

Coastal Counties/Parishes of AL, MS,

LA and TX, Due: December 29, 1997,

Contact: Archie Melancon (703) 787–

1547.

EIS No. 970454, Revised Draft EIS, BLM,

CA, Imperial Project, Open-Pit

Precious Metal Mining Operation

Utilizing Heap Leach Processes, Plan

of Operations, Right-of-Way,

Conditional Use Permit, US COE

Permit and Reclamation Plan

Approvals, El Centro Resource Area,

California Area District, Imperial

County, CA, Due: January 27, 1998,

Contact: Douglas Romoli (909) 697–

5237. The above Revised Draft EIS

replaces Draft EIS #960511, filed with

the US EPA on 10–25–96.

EIS No. 970455, Draft EIS, USA, NY,

Seneca Army Depot Activity Disposal

and Reuse, Implementation, Seneca

County and the City of Geneva,

Ontario County, NY, Due: January 12,

1998, Contact: Ltc. Rob Dow (703)

693–9217.

EIS No. 970456, Draft EIS, AFS, AK,

Indian River Timber Sale(s) Project,

Implementation, Tongass National

Forest, Chatham Area, Sitka and

Hoonah Ranger Districts, COE Section

10 and 404 Permit, NPDES and Coast

Guard Bridge Permit, Chichagof

Island, AK, Due: January 12, 1998,

Contact: Linn Shipley (907) 747–6671.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 970442, Draft EIS, USN, CA,

Hunters Point (Former) Naval

Shipyard Disposal and Reuse,

Implementation, City of San

Francisco, San Francisco County, CA,

Due: January 05, 1998, Contact: Mary

Doyle (650) 244–3024. Published FR

11–14–97—Review Period extended.

EIS No. 970444, Final Supplement,

NOA, Snapper Grouper Fishery,

Amendment 8 to the Fishery

Management Plan, Regulatory Impact

Review, South Atlantic Region, Due:

December 29, 1997, Contact: Rolland

A. Schmitter (301) 713–2239.

Published FR 11–14–97—Review

Period Reestablished.

EIS No. 970451, Draft EIS, DOE, CO,

Rocky Flats Environmental

Technology Site Management of

Certain Plutonium Residues and

Scrub Alloy Stored, Golden, CO, Due:

January 05, 1998, Contact: Charles

Head (202) 586–5151. Published FR

11–21–97 Correction to Title.

Dated: November 24, 1997.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–31249 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5486–8]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared November 10, 1997 Through

November 14, 1997 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 11, 1997 (62 FR 16154).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–FHW–K40227–CA Rating

EC2, I–880 Interchange at Dixon

Landing Road Reconstruction

Improvements, Funding and COE

Section 404 Permit, Fremont, Milpitas,

Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding the

lack of full disclosure of alternatives

impacts due to the proposed width of

the overcrossing. EPA requested

clarification of these issues and

mitigation involving revegetation and

restoring old road beds be discussed.

ERP No. D–NOA–E70000–GA Rating

LO, State of Georgia Coastal

Management Program, Comprehensive

Coastal Land and Water Use Activities,

Approval and Implementation, GA.

Summary: EPA had lack of objections

with the proposed project. EPA did not

identify any potential environmental

impacts requiring substantial change to

the proposal, and that the alternatives

and their consequences were reasonably

disclosed.

ERP No. D–SCS–G36146–OK Rating

LO, Middle Deep Red Run Creek

Watershed Plan, Implementation,

Funding and Possible COE Section 404

Permit, Central Rolling Red Plains,

Tillman, Comanche and Kiowa

Counties, OK.

Summary: EPA had lack of objection

to the selection of the Natural Resources

Conservation Service’s preferred

alternative as described in the Draft EIS.

ERP No. D–USN–K11082–CA Rating

EC2, San Diego Naval Training Center

(NTC) Disposal and Reuse of Certain

Real Properties, Implementation, City of

San Diego, San Diego County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

biological and water resources

cumulative impacts and environmental

justice. EPA requested that these issues

be clarified in the Final EIS.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–BOP–E80001–KY, United

States Penitentiary Martin County,

Construction and Operation, Possible

Sites, Bizwell and Honey Branch Sites,

located in Martin and Johnson Counties,

KY.

Summary: EPA had lack of objections

with the proposed project. All of EPA’s