8704 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

important information gaps are filled

concurrently to define identified

remediation alternatives more clearly,

and possibly to identify new and better

ones. As part of this strategy, periodic

independent scientific and technical

expert reviews should be conducted so

that deficiencies may be recognized and

midcourse corrections be made in the

operational program.

Response 7: DOE agrees with the

Council that periodic independent

scientific and technical expert reviews

are essential to the success of the TWRS

program. While carrying out the current

decisions, DOE will continually

evaluate new information relative to the

tank waste remediation program. DOE

also intends to conduct formal

evaluations of new information relative

to the tank waste remediation program

at three key points over the next eight

years under its NEPA regulations (10

CFR 1021.314), with an appropriate

level of public involvement, to ensure

that DOE will stay on a correct course

for managing and remediating the waste.

As remediation proceeds in the coming

years, DOE will learn more about

management and remediation of the

tank waste and ways to protect public

and worker health and the environment.

Within this time frame, DOE will obtain

additional information on the

effectiveness of retrieval technologies,

characteristics of the tank wastes,

effectiveness of waste separation and

immobilization techniques, and more

definitive data on the costs of retrieval,

separations, and immobilization of the

waste. These formal reevaluations will

incorporate the latest information on

these topics. DOE will conduct these

formal evaluations of the entire TWRS

program at the following stages: (1)

before proceeding into Privatization

Phase I Part B (scheduled for May 1998);

(2) prior to the start of hot operations of

Privatization Phase I Part B (scheduled

for December 2002/December 2003); and

(3) before deciding to proceed with

Privatization Phase II (scheduled for

December 2005). In conducting these

reviews, DOE will seek the advice of

independent experts from the scientific

and financial community, such as the

National Academy of Sciences which

will focus on performance criteria and

the costs of waste treatment. DOE has

established a TWRS Privatization

Review Board consisting of Senior DOE

representatives to provide on-going

assistance and interactive oversight of

the review of Part A deliverables and

discussions with the contractors.

Informal evaluations also will be

conducted as the information warrants.

These formal and informal evaluations

will help DOE to determine whether

previous decisions need to be changed.

Washington State Department of Fish

and Wildlife Comment

Comment: The Washington State

Department of Fish and Wildlife

recommends that the following language

be included in the Record of Decision:

‘‘The site selection of the precise

location of remediation facilities for the

selected alternative shall be subject to

future supplemental NEPA analysis.

This supplemental NEPA analysis shall

commit to a supplemental Mitigation

Action Plan. The Mitigation Action Plan

and supplemental Mitigation Action

Plan will be prepared in consultation

with the Washington State Department

of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, with input from

the Hanford Site’s Natural Resource

Trustee Council.’’

‘‘Impacts to State priority shrubsteppe habitat would be one of the

evaluation criteria used in site selection.

The site selection process would

include the following hierarchy of

measures:

• Avoid priority shrub-steppe habitat

to the extent feasible by locating or

configuring project elements in preexisting disturbed areas.

• Minimize project impacts to the

extent feasible by modifying facility

layouts and/or altering construction

timing.’’

‘‘Compensatory mitigation measures

for the loss of shrub-steppe habitat shall

be identified and implemented in the

supplemental NEPA analysis and

Mitigation Action Plan.’’

Response: DOE believes that the

following approach satisfies the

substance of these comments.

The EIS (Section 5.20) describes both

mitigation measures that are integral

parts of all of the alternatives (Section

5.20.1) and further mitigation measures

that could be implemented when

indicated or appropriate (Section

5.20.2). In selecting the preferred

alternative DOE has committed to all of

the mitigation measures in Section

5.20.1, which include measures to

restore newly disturbed areas. As the

State requested, the Record of Decision

commits to conducting NEPA analysis

for site selection of facilities.

DOE intends to implement those

further measures described in Section

5.20.2 as may be necessary to mitigate

potential impacts on priority shrubsteppe habitat, and will consider the

potential for such impacts as a factor in

the site selection process for TWRS

facilities. The site selection process will

include the following hierarchy of

measures: (1) avoid undisturbed shrubsteppe areas to the extent feasible; (2)

minimize impacts to the extent feasible;

(3) restore temporarily disturbed areas;

(4) compensate for unavoidable impacts

by replacing habitat; and (5) manage

critical habitat on a Sitewide basis.

DOE believes that mitigation of

impacts to habitats of special

importance to the ecological health of

the region is most effective when

planned and implemented on a sitewide

basis. Recognizing this, DOE is

preparing a sitewide biological

management plan to protect these

resources. Under this sitewide

approach, the potential impacts of all

projects would be evaluated and

appropriate mitigation would be

developed based on the cumulative

impacts to the ecosystem. Mitigation to

reduce the ecological impacts from

TWRS remediation would be performed

in compliance with the sitewide

biological management plan. Mitigation

would focus on disturbance of

contiguous, mature sagebrushdominated shrub-steppe habitat.

Compensation (habitat replacement)

would occur where DOE deems

appropriate. Specific mitigation ratios,

sites, and planting strategies (e.g., plant

size, number, and density) for TWRS

facilities and operations would be

defined in the TWRS Mitigation Action

Plan, which would be revised for each

specific TWRS facility siting decision.

The Mitigation Action Plan would be

prepared in consultation with the

Washington State Department of Fish

and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and Tribal Nations, with input

from the Hanford Site’s Natural

Resources Trustees Council. DOE will

make the Mitigation Action Plan

publicly available before taking action

that is the subject of a mitigation

commitment.

[FR Doc. 97–4696 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Energy Information Administration

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

SUMMARY: The Energy Information

Administration (EIA) is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed

three year clearance with no changes to

the forms EIA–800–804, 807, 810–814,

816, 817, 819M, and 820 of EIA’s

Petroleum Supply Reporting System.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before April 28, 1997.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices 8705

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below of your

intention to do so as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Michael

Conner, Energy Information

Administration, EI–421, Forrestal

Building, U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–1795,

e-mail mconner@eia.doe.gov, and FAX

(202) 586–5846.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Requests for

additional information or copies of the

form and instructions should be

directed to Michael Conner at the

address listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

II. Current Actions

III. Request for Comments

I. Background

In order to fulfill its responsibilities

under the Federal Energy

Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. No.

93–275) and the Department of Energy

Organization Act (Pub. L. No. 95–91),

the Energy Information Administration

is obliged to carry out a central,

comprehensive, and unified energy data

and information program. As part of this

program, EIA collects, evaluates,

assembles, analyzes, and disseminates

data and information related to energy

resource reserves, production, demand,

and technology, and related economic

and statistical information relevant to

the adequacy of energy resources to

meet demands in the near and longer

term future for the Nation’s economic

and social needs.

The Energy Information

Administration, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork and

respondent burden (required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13)), conducts a presurvey

consultation program to provide the

general public and other Federal

agencies with an opportunity to

comment on proposed and/or

continuing reporting forms. This

program helps to ensure that requested

data can be provided in the desired

format, reporting burden is minimized,

reporting forms are clearly understood,

and the impact of collection

requirements on respondents can be

properly assessed. Also, EIA will later

seek approval by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for the

collections under Section 3507(h) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. No. 104–13, Title 44, U.S.C. Chapter

35).

The Petroleum Supply Reporting

System collects data necessary for

determining the supply and disposition

of crude oil, finished petroleum

products, and natural gas liquids. These

data are published by the Energy

Information Administration in the

Weekly Petroleum Status Report,

Petroleum Supply Monthly, and the

Petroleum Supply Annual. Respondents

to the surveys are producers of

oxygenates, operators of petroleum

refining facilities, blending plants, bulk

terminals, crude oil and product

pipelines, natural gas plant facilities,

tanker and barge operators, and oil

importers.

II. Current Actions

The Energy Information

Administration will request a three year

clearance with no changes to the

existing collection forms.

III. Request for Comments

Prospective respondents and other

interested parties should comment on

the actions discussed in item II. The

following guidelines are provided to

assist in the preparation of responses. (If

the notice covers more than one form,

add ‘‘Please indicate to which form(s)

your comments apply.’’)

General Issues

A. Is the proposed collection of

information necessary, taking into

account its accuracy, adequacy, and

reliability, and the agency’s ability to

process the information it collects in a

useful and timely fashion.

B. What enhancements can EIA make

to the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected?

As a Potential Respondent

A. Are the instructions and

definitions clear and sufficient? If not,

which instructions require clarification?

B. Can data be submitted in

accordance with the due date specified

in the instructions?

C. EIA allows for respondents to

report manually or by using the

Petroleum Electronic Data Reporting

Option (PEDRO) for all forms except the

EIA–807, EIA–819M, and EIA–820. EIA

believes that reporting using PEDRO

takes less time than manual reporting.

Estimated public reporting burden for

the collections are listed below. For

those forms that utilize PEDRO, two

estimates are provided: the first is for an

average report prepared manually and

the second is for an average report

submitted using PEDRO. The burden

estimates are: EIA–800, 1 hour 15

minutes (manual submission) and 1

hour (PEDRO submission); EIA–801, 45

minutes and 30 minutes; EIA–802, 45

minutes and 30 minutes; EIA–803, 30

minutes and 15 minutes; EIA–804, 1

hour 15 minutes and 1 hour; EIA–807,

1 hour for weekly reports from October

through March, and 30 minutes for

monthly reports from April through

September; EIA–810, 3 hours 45

minutes and 2 hours; EIA–811, 1 hour

45 minutes and 1 hour; EIA–812, 2

hours 15 minutes and 1 hour 30

minutes; EIA–813, 1 hour 30 minutes

and 45 minutes; EIA–814, 2 hours and

1 hour 15 minutes; EIA–816, 45 minutes

and 30 minutes; EIA–817, 1 hour 45

minutes and 1 hour; EIA–819M, 30

minutes; and EIA–820, 2 hours. Burden

includes the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended to

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide the information including: (1)

reviewing instructions; (2) developing,

acquiring, installing, and utilizing

technology and systems for the purposes

of collecting, validating, verifying,

processing, maintaining, disclosing and

providing information; (3) adjusting the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; (4) training personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

(5) searching data sources; (6)

completing and reviewing the collection

of information; and (7) transmitting, or

otherwise disclosing the information.

Please comment on (1) the accuracy of

our estimate and (2) how the agency

could minimize the burden of the

collection of information, including the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

D. What are the estimated (1) total

dollar amount annualized for capital

and start-up costs, and (2) recurring

annual dollar amount of operation,

maintenance, and purchase of service

costs associated with this data

collection? The estimates should take

into account the costs associated with

generating, maintaining, and disclosing

or providing the information. Estimates

should not include purchases of

equipment or services made as part of

customary and usual business practices,

or the cost of any burden hours for

completing the form. EIA estimates that

there are no additional costs other than

those that the respondent incurs in

keeping the information for its own

uses.

E. Do you know of any other Federal,

State, or local agency that collects

similar data? If you do, specify the

agency, the data element(s), and the

methods of collection.

As a Potential User

A. Can you use data at the levels of

detail indicated on the form?

B. For what purpose would you use

the data? Be specific.
8706 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Notices

C. Are there alternate sources of data

and do you use them? If so, what are

their deficiencies and/or strengths?

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for OMB

approval of the form. They also will

become a matter of public record.

Statutory Authority: Section 3506(c)(2)(A)

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Pub. L. No. 104–13).

Issued in Washington, D.C. February 20,

1997.

Lynda T. Carlson,

Director, Office of Statistical Standards,

Energy Information Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–4694 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP97–246–000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of

Application

February 20, 1997.

Take notice that on February 14, 1997,

ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 500

Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan

48243, filed an application pursuant to

Sections 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and

Part 157 of the Commission’s

Regulations for authorization to utilize

temporary work spaces and for any

other authorization deemed necessary

associated with a pipeline replacement

project in Kendall County, Illinois, all as

more fully set forth in the application

on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

ANR states, that in order to satisfy

U.S. Department of Transportation

safety regulations, it proposes to replace

both a 0.27 mile and 0.29 mile line

segment of its main line system due to

increased population density in the

area. ANR states that in order to make

the replacement it will have to utilize

work areas which may not have been

included in the scope of the original

authorization to construct the facilities.

Therefore, ANR requests the temporary

use of work space and any other

authorizations deemed necessary by the

Commission in order to make the

replacement. ANR states that the

construction will be done under the

authority of Section 2.55 of the

Commission’s Regulations, which

authorizes replacement within the

existing right-of-way.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to said

application should on or before March

13, 1997, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a

protest in accordance with the

requirements of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.211 and 385.214) and the

regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with

the Commission will be considered by

it in determining the appropriate action

to be taken but will not serve to make

the protestants parties to the

proceeding. Any person wishing to

become a party in any proceeding

herein must file a motion to intervene

in accordance with the Commission’s

rules.

Take further notice that, pursuant to

the authority contained in any subject to

the jurisdiction conferred upon the

Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the

Natural Gas Act and the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure, a

hearing will be held without further

notice before the Commission or its

designee on this application if no

motion to intervene is filed within the

time required herein, if the Commission

on its own review of the matter finds

that permission and approval for the

proposed abandonment are required by

the public convenience and necessity. If

a motion for leave to intervene is timely

filed, or if the Commission on its own

motion believes that formal hearing is

required, further notice of such hearing

will be duly given.

Under the procedure herein provided

for, unless otherwise advised, it will be

unnecessary for ANR to appear or to be

represented at the hearing.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–4673 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. ER97–1170–000]

Bangor Hydro Electric Company;

Notice of Filing

February 20, 1997.

Take notice that on December 31,

1996, Bangor Hydro Electric Company

tendered for filing a Pro Forma Open

Access Transmission Tariff. Bangor

Hydro states that this submittal is to

remove higher voltage network facilities

from its tariff.

Any Person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

or protests should be filed on or before

February 27, 1997. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–4721 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP95–408–018]

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation; Notice of Compliance

Filing

February 20, 1997.

Take notice that on February 14, 1997,

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation

(Columbia) tendered for filing as part of

its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised

Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on

Appendix A to the filing, to become

effective on February 1, 1997.

On December 31, 1996, as revised on

January 17, 1997, Columbia filed revised

tariff sheets in Docket No. RP95–408, et

al. that, inter alia, would implement

lower settlement rates pending

Commission action on the November 22,

1996 settlement in this docket,

contingent upon customers being

subject to a surcharge in the event the

settlement is not approved or

implemented. The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission)

issued its order on Columbia’s filings on

January 29, 1997 (78 FERC ¶ 61,071),

which accepted the revised tariff sheets

but which required that Columbia file

revised tariff sheets setting forth the

existing rates which any customer that

does not agree to the surcharge

provision may pay until the settlement

is acted upon by the Commission.

Columbia states that the instant filing

is being made in compliance with that

order. The revised tariff sheets herein

indicate they are ‘‘Collection Rates’’ and

contain a statement that they are

applicable to customers not wanting to

be subject to the surcharge condition

associated with paying the Settlement

Rates. These tariff sheets reflect the rates

that were in effect in the billing month

preceding February 1, 1997.

Columbia states that copies of its

filing have been mailed to all parties in

this proceeding, firm and interruptible

customers, and affected state

commissions.

Any person desiring to protest this

filing should file a protest with the