64376 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5487–1]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared November 17, 1997 Through

November 21, 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 the

Federal Register dated April 11, 1997

(62 FR 16154).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–L65292–ID Rating

EO2, Caribou National Forest,

Implementation, Federal Phosphate

Leasing Proposal for the Manning Creek

and Dairy Syncline Tracts, Caribou

County, ID.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections about project

impacts on water quality, including

303(d) listed waters. Specific mitigation

measures need to be included in the

Final EIS.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–L60103–AK, Swan

Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Project,

Electrical Transmission Line and

Associated Facilities Construction and

Operation, Northwestern Portion of

Revillagigedo Island from Upper Carroll

Inlet to Behm Canal and the

Northeastern Portion of Cleveland

Peninsula from Spacious Bay to

Bradfield Canal, Special-Use-Permit

Issuance, Tongass.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the

methodologies used and conclusions

drawn about cumulative effects within

the project corridor.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–31916 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5486–9]

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 24,

1997 Through November 28, 1997

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 970457, Final EIS, FHW, NC,

US–17/Wilmington Bypass

Transportation Improvement Program,

Updated Information, TIP R–2633C,

Construction from I–40 to US 421,

Funding, NPDES and US Coast Guard

and COE Section 10 and 404 Permits,

New Hanover County, NC, Due:

January 5, 1998, Contact: Nicholas L.

Graf, P.E. (919) 856–4346.

EIS No. 970458, Final EIS, IBR, CA,

American River Water Resources

Investigation, Implementation, Placer,

Suter, EL Dorado, Sacramento and

San Joaquin Counties, CA, Due:

January 5, 1998, Contact: Al Candlish

(916) 978–5187.

EIS No. 970459, Draft EIS, FHW, CA,

CA–58, Transportation Corridor,

Route Adoption and Purchases Rightof-Way Acquisition Project, between

CA–99 in the Bakersfield

Metropolitan Area and Interstate 5 in

Kern County, Funding and COE

Section 404 Permit, Kern County, CA,

Due: January 25, 1998, Contact: John

R. Schultz (916) 498–5041.

EIS No. 970460, Final EIS, COE, CA,

Syar Mining Operation and

Reclamation Plan, Six Sites Selected

along the Russian River, Construction,

Mining-Use-Permit and COE Section

404 Permit, City of Healdsburg,

Sonoma County, CA, Due: January 5,

1998, Contact: Peter Straub (415) 977–

8443.

EIS No. 970461, Draft EIS, AFS, CA,

Ansel Adams, John Muir, Dinkey

Lakes and Monarch Wildernesses,

Proposed New Management Direction,

Amending the Land and Resource

Management Plans for the Inyo, Sierra

and Sequoia National Forests,

Implementation, Inyo, Madera, Mono

and Fresno Counties, CA, Due: March

6, 1998, Contact: Robert Hawkins

(619) 873–2400.

EIS No. 970462, Final EIS, NOA, GA,

State of Georgia Coastal Management

Program, Comprehensive Coastal

Land and Water Use Activities,

Approval and Implementation, GA,

Due: January 5, 1998, Contact: Joshua

Lott (301) 713–3117.

EIS No. 970463, Draft EIS, BLM, AK,

Northeast National Petroleum

Reserve-Alaska (NPR–A), Integrate

Activity Plan, Multiple-Use

Management, for Land within the

North Slope Borough, AK, Due:

February 10, 1998, Contact: Gene

Terland (907) 271–3369.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–31917 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5932–4]

Notice of Proposed NPDES General

Permits for Discharges From

Hydrostatic Testing of New and

Existing Natural Gas Pipelines in

Texas (TXG670000), Oklahoma

(OKG670000) and New Mexico

(NMG670000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft NPDES general

permits.

SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is proposing to

issue general NPDES permits

authorizing discharges resulting from

the hydrostatic testing of new and

existing natural gas pipelines in Texas,

Oklahoma and New Mexico. These

permits cover discharges resulting from

the hydrostatic testing, as required by

Department of Transportation

regulations 49 CFR Part 192, Subpart J,

or equivalent State rules, of new as well

as existing pipelines for natural gas. As

proposed, the permits have the

following requirements for hydrostatic

test water discharges from new natural

gas pipelines: Limits on oil and grease,

total suspended solids and pH, and a

limit of no acute toxicity if the

hydrostatic test fill water is obtained

from a source other than the receiving

water to which the hydrostatic test

water is discharged. For hydrostatic test

water discharges from existing natural

gas pipelines, the permits have the same

limits as for new pipelines (limits on oil

and grease, total suspended solids, pH

and, in some cases, no acute toxicity) as

well as a limit on benzene.

DATES: Comments on these proposed

permits must be submitted by February

3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these

proposed permits should be sent to the

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Notices 64377

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–

2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Wilma Turner, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665-7516. Copies of the

complete fact sheet and proposed

permits may be obtained from Ms.

Turner. The fact sheet and proposed

permits can also be found on the

Internet at http://www.epa.gov/

earth1r6/6wq/6wq.htm. In addition, the

current administrative record on the

proposal is available for examination at

the Region’s Dallas offices during

normal working hours after providing

Ms. Turner 24 hours advanced notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated categories and entities

include:

Category Examples of regulated

entities

Industry ......... Operators of facilities discharging waste waters resulting from the hydrostatic

testing of new and existing

natural gas pipelines.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

(facility, company, business,

organization, etc.) is regulated by this

action, you should carefully examine

the applicability criteria in Part I,

Section A.1 of these permits. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a),

makes it unlawful to discharge

pollutants to waters of the United States

in the absence of authorizing permits.

CWA section 402, 33 U.S.C. 1342,

authorizes EPA to issue National

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permits allowing discharges on

condition they will meet certain

requirements, including CWA sections

301, 304, and 401 (33 U.S.C. 1331, 1314

and 1341).

Those statutory provisions require

that NPDES permits include effluent

limitations requiring that authorized

discharges: (1) Meet standards reflecting

levels of technological capability, (2)

comply with EPA-approved state water

quality standards and (3) comply with

other state requirements adopted under

authority retained by states under CWA

510, 33 U.S.C. 1370.

Two types of technology-based

effluent limitations must be included in

the permits proposed here. With regard

to conventional pollutants, i.e., pH,

BOD, oil and grease, TSS and fecal

coliform, CWA section 301 (b)(1)(E)

requires effluent limitations based on

‘‘best conventional pollution control

technology’’ (BCT). With regard to

nonconventional and toxic pollutants,

CWA section 301(b)(2) (A), (C), and (D)

require effluent limitations based on

‘‘best available pollution control

technology economically achievable’’

(BAT), a standard which generally

represents the best performing existing

technology in an industrial category or

subcategory. BAT and BCT effluent

limitations may never be less stringent

than corresponding effluent limitations

based on best practicable control

technology (BPT), a standard applicable

to similar discharges prior to March 31,

1989 under CWA 301(b)(1)(A).

National guidelines establishing BPT,

BCT and BAT standards have not been

promulgated for discharges from the

hydrostatic testing of pipelines. The

BCT and BAT requirements for these

discharges have, therefore, been

established using best professional

judgement, as required by CWA section

402(a)(1). The following limits are

proposed:

Texas (TXG670000) Daily

maximum

Benzene 1 ............................... 50 μg/l

Oil and Grease ....................... 15 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids, pH

6.0–9.0 Std. Units.

90 mg/l

Oklahoma (OKG670000) Daily

maximum

Benzene 1 ............................... 50 μg/l

Oil and Grease ....................... 15 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids, pH

6.5–9.0 Std. Units.

45 mg/l

New Mexico (NMG67000) Daily

maximum

Benzene 1 ............................... 50 μg/l

Oil and Grease ....................... 15 mg/l

Total Suspended Solids, pH

6.0–9.0 Std. Units.

90 mg/l

1Benzene limit applies to discharges from

existing natural gas pipelines.

Requirements applicable for

TXG670000, OKG670000 and

NMG670000:

There shall be No Acute Toxicity as

determined by requiring greater than

50% survival in 100% effluent using a

24 hour acute test. Sampling for the

toxicity test shall be made on the fill

water prior to being used in the

hydrostatic test. This toxicity limit

applies only to fill water taken from a

source different from the receiving

water to which it is discharged. This

toxicity limit does not, however, apply

to fill water whose source is a municipal

drinking water supply.

Other Legal Requirements

A. State Certification

Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act,

EPA may not issue an NPDES permit

until the State in which the discharge

will originate grants or waives

certification to ensure compliance with

appropriate requirements of the Act and

State law. Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the

Act requires that NPDES permits

contain conditions that ensure

compliance with applicable state water

quality standards or limitations. The

proposed permits contain limitations

intended to ensure compliance with

state water quality standards and has

been determined by EPA Region 6 to be

consistent with the applicable state’s

water quality standards and the

corresponding implementation plans.

The Region has solicited certification

from the Railroad Commission of Texas

for TXG670000, the Oklahoma

Corporation Commission for

OKG670000 and the New Mexico

Environment Department for

NMG670000.

B. Endangered Species Act

The proposed limits are sufficiently

stringent to assure state water quality

standards, both for aquatic life

protection and human health protection,

will be met. The effluent limitations

established in these permits ensure

protection of aquatic life and

maintenance of the receiving water as

an aquatic habitat. The Region finds that

adoption of the proposed permits is

unlikely to adversely affect any

threatened or endangered species or its

critical habitat. EPA is seeking written

concurrence from the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service and National

Marine Fisheries Service on this

determination.

C. Historic Preservation Act

Facilities which adversely affect

properties listed or eligible for listing in

the National Register of Historical

Places are not authorized to discharge

under this permit.

D. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this action from

the review requirements of Executive

Order 12866.
64378 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Notices

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection required

by this permit has been approved by

OMB under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., in submission made for the

NPDES permit program and assigned

OMB control numbers 2040–0086

(NPDES permit application) and 2040–

0004 (discharge monitoring reports).

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 201 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, generally requires Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

‘‘regulatory actions’’ on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. UMRA uses the term ‘‘regulatory

actions’’ to refer to regulations. (See,

e.g., UMRA section 201, ‘‘Each agency

shall * * * assess the effects of Federal

regulatory actions * * * (other than to

the extent that such regulations

incorporate requirements specifically

set forth in law)’’ (emphasis added)).

UMRA section 102 defines ‘‘regulation’’

by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of

the U.S. Code, which in turn defines

‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ by reference to

section 601(2) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA). That section of

the RFA defines ‘‘rule’’ as ‘‘any rule for

which the agency publishes a notice of

proposed rulemaking pursuant to

section 553(b) of [the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA)], or any other law

* * *’’

NPDES general permits are not

‘‘rules’’ under the APA and thus not

subject to the APA requirement to

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking. NPDES general permits are

also not subject to such a requirement

under the CWA. While EPA publishes a

notice to solicit public comment on

draft general permits, it does so

pursuant to the CWA section 402(a)

requirement to provide ‘‘an opportunity

for a hearing.’’ Thus, NPDES general

permits are not ‘‘rules’’ for RFA or

UMRA purposes.

EPA thinks it is unlikely that this

proposed permit issuance would

contain a Federal requirement that

might result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year.

The Agency also believes that the

proposed permit issuance would not

significantly nor uniquely affect small

governments. For UMRA purposes,

‘‘small governments’’ is defined by

reference to the definition of ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction’’ under the

RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1),

referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which

references section 601(5) of the RFA.)

‘‘Small governmental jurisdiction’’

means governments of cities, counties,

towns, etc., with a population of less

than 50,000, unless the agency

establishes an alternative definition.

The proposed permit issuance also

would not uniquely affect small

governments because compliance with

the proposed permit conditions affects

small governments in the same manner

as any other entities seeking coverage

under the permit.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq, requires that EPA

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

for regulations that have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Compliance with the permit

requirements will not result in a

significant impact on dischargers,

including small businesses, covered by

these permits. EPA Region 6 therefore

concludes that the permits proposed

today will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Dated: November 25, 1997.

Oscar Ramirez, Jr.,

Deputy Director, Water Quality Protection

Division, EPA Region 6.

[FR Doc. 97–31913 Filed 12–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

November 28, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before January 5, 1998.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M St.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collection(s), contact Judy

Boley at 202–418–0214 or via internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.: 3060–0785.

Title: Changes to the Board of

Directors of the National Exchange

Carrier Association (NECA) and the

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal

Service, CC Docket Nos. 97–21 and 96–

45.

Form No.: FCC Form 457.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit.

Number of Respondents: 5,000

respondents, 20,000 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5 hours

(avg).

Frequency of Response: Reporting

requirements—on occasion, quarterly,

semi-annually, and monthly.

Cost to Respondents: $7,580,500.

Total Annual Burden: 86,250 hours.

Needs and Uses: The Universal

Service Worksheet, FCC Form 457, will

be submitted by contributors to

universal service. Contributors are asked

to submit semi-annually information

regarding their end-user

telecommunications revenues. The FCC

Form 457 will be used by the

Administrator of the Universal Service

Support Mechanisms to calculate

individual contributions. Contributors

will also be required to submit quarterly

contributions to universal service.

Contributors may also submit

information in order to get credits

against their contributions.

Additionally, contributors may submit

monthly credit information, but this