8014 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Notices

wildlife habitat, and public health and

safety.

ERP No. D–STA–G50009–00 Rating

LO, Programmatic EIS—International

Bridge Crossing Project, Construction

and Operation, Along the United StatesMexico Border from EL Paso to

Brownsville, TX, Presidential Permit,

NM and TX.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the proposed action.

ERP No. D–UMC–K24018–CA Rating

EC2, Sewage Effluent Compliance

Project, Implementation, Lower Santa

Margarita Basin, Marine Corps Base

Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the

alternative analysis and requested

clarification of wetland issues.

ERP No. DA–DOE–A22076–NM

Rating LO, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Disposal Phase, Updated Information,

Disposal of Transuranic Waste,

Carlsbad, NM.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections to the preferred alternative.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–J60017–CO Fraser

Valley Loop Transmission Line Project,

Construction, Operation, Associated

Operations and Maintenance Activities,

Approval of Permits, Arapaho and

Roosevelt National Forests, Grand

County, CO.

Summary: EPA continued to express

environmental concerns that many of

the potential impacts to wetlands, old

growth, and raptor nests will not be

known until a biological survey of the

area is done. EPA also expressed

environmental concern over possible

conflicts that may still exist between

this EIS and draft land management

plans.

ERP No. F–AFS–J65242–MT

Checkerboard Land Exchange, Plan of

Approval and Implementation,

Kootenai, Lolo and Flathead National

Forests, Lincoln, Flathead and Sanders

Counties, MT.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about potential

adverse water quality and fisheries

impacts that could occur on lands

exchanged to the Plum Creek Timber

Company (PCTC) due to high intensity

timber harvesting and road building

activities by PCTC on these lands.

ERP No. F–AFS–K65189–CA, Cavanah

Multi-Resource Management Project,

Implementation, Enhancing Forest

Health and Productivity, Tahoe National

Forest, Foresthill Ranger District, Placer

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that the

number of proposed road obliterations

will not be adequate to improve water

quality.

ERP No. F–BLM–K67037–NV, Twin

Creeks Mine Consolidation and

Expansion, which Encompasses the

former Rabbit Creek Mine and the

former Chimmey Creek Mine, Plan of

Operation Approval and Permit

Issuance, Winnemucca District,

Humboldt County, NV.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS

was not deemed necessary. No formal

comment letter was sent to the

preparing agency.

ERP No. F–COE–G39029–LA,

Programmatic EIS—Marsh Management

Project, Hydrologic Manipulation, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permit Issuance,

Coastal Wetland of Louisiana a part of

the Coastal Wetlands Planning,

Protection and Restoration Act

(CWPPRA) River Basins, LA.

Summary: EPA recommended that the

Record of Decision identify the future

directions or activities that can be

implemented by the COE to address

hydrologic manipulation issues in

coastal Louisiana.

ERP No. F–COE–G85180–LA, Estelle

Plantation Partnership Municipal Golf

Course and Housing Development,

Implementation, Jefferson Parish, LA.

Summary: EPA continued to have

environmental concerns regarding the

preferred actions but defers further

comment pending completion of the

Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit

processing.

ERP No. F–FHW–K40214–CA,

Alternatives to Replacement of the

Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal

Separator Structure, (Formerly CA–480)

Implementation, Permit Approvals and

Funding, San Francisco County, CA.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS

was not deemed necessary. No formal

comment letter was sent to the

preparing agency.

ERP No. F–GSA–C81017–NY, US

Brooklyn Court Project, Demolition of

the Emanuel Celler Federal Building,

Construction of a New Courthouse and

Renovation/Adaptive Reuse of the

General Post Office at Cadman Plaza

East, Kings County, NY.

Summary: EPA continued to have

environmental concerns about the

meteorological data used in the air

model. EPA has requested that updated

information be used in a revised

modeling analysis.

Dated: February 18, 1997.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–4352 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[FRL–5691–9]

Notice of Public Meeting on the

National Performance Measures

Strategy for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of second public meeting

to solicit suggestions for innovative,

supplemental measures of enforcement

and compliance assurance program

performance; develop a common

understanding with partners and

stakeholders about a set of national

measures and the steps necessary to

implement them (based on the state of

national compliance); and discuss how

to carry out an implementation plan to

put the new set of measures into

practice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Office of Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance (OECA) held

its first public meeting on Monday,

February 3, 1997, in Alexandria, VA to

hear presentations and statements from

a cross-section of stakeholders about

innovative approaches to measuring

enforcement and compliance assurance

program performance. This notice is

hereby given that the EPA is soliciting

comments for the second public meeting

to continue to hear from stakeholders

regarding the way EPA measures its

enforcement programs.

DATES: The meeting date will take place

on Monday, March 17, 1997, from 8:30

a.m to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will

take place on Monday, March 17, 1997

at the Holiday Inn Civic Center, 50 8th

Street, San Francisco, California 94103

(415–626–6103 or 1–800–243–1135).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James McDonald, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance

Assurance, 401 M Street, S.W. (2201A),

Washington, D.C., 20460; telephone

(202) 564–4043, fax (202) 501–0701 or

via the INTERNET at

McDonald.James@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

For many years, EPA has counted

annual enforcement outputs (e.g.,

inspections conducted, number of civil

and criminal cases, penalties assessed)

as the predominant measure of

performance for the enforcement and

compliance assurance program. While

these outputs will continue to be used

as an important measure of

environmental enforcement, EPA seeks

additional measures to assess the status
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Notices 8015

and trends of regulatory compliance, as

well as environmental improvements

resulting from enforcement and

compliance assurance activities. This

need was recognized during the

enforcement reorganization in 1993, and

a commitment was made during that

process to develop additional measures.

In addition, the requirements of the

Government Performance and Results

Act (GPRA) offer an opportunity to

review and improve performance

measures.

For almost three years, the Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

(OECA) has been taking steps to

improve its performance measures for

enforcement and compliance assurance

activities. During that time, OECA: (1)

convened a Measures of Success Work

Group comprised of EPA and Regional

officials, (2) developed and

implemented a Case Conclusion Data

Sheet (CCDS) to gather new types of

information about completed cases, (3)

developed and implemented a reporting

measure for compliance assistance

activities, and (4) realigned single-media

data bases to enable reporting of

enforcement data by industry sector.

Through these steps, OECA has made

progress in developing an enhanced set

of performance measures. Specifically,

OECA is now able to supplement

traditional enforcement output

measures with other measures,

including: (1) actions taken by violators

to return to compliance, (2) quantitative

environmental impact and qualitative

environmental benefit of those actions,

(3) types, amounts, and impact of

compliance assistance activities, and (4)

industry-specific compliance rates.

These elements were fully operational

together for the first time in FY 96, and

the results of these efforts are being

compiled in a national

accomplishments report. However,

OECA recognizes further improvements

can, and should, be made with regard to

reporting the state of national

compliance and trends of environmental

enforcement and compliance.

The purpose of this notice is to reach

out for new ideas from EPA’s regulatory

partners (i.e., State, Tribal, and local

governments) and interested

stakeholders, and solicit participation in

EPA’s second national meeting on

performance measures for its

enforcement and compliance assurance

program.

II. The National Performance Measures

Strategy

The purpose of the National

Performance Measures Strategy is to

develop and implement an enhanced set

of performance measures for the

enforcement and compliance assurance

program. The Strategy includes: (1)

soliciting new ideas from regulatory

partners and stakeholders for more

meaningful and sophisticated measures

of program performance, (2) developing

a common understanding with

regulatory partners and stakeholders

about a set of national measures and the

short- and long-term steps necessary to

implement them, and (3) carrying out an

implementation plan to put the new set

of measures into practice.

The Strategy includes the following

elements:

1. Conduct dialogue with regulatory

partners, including senior EPA

Headquarters and Regional managers,

State officials, and a Department of

Justice representative, to assist with

implementation of the Strategy.

2. Hold initial public meetings to

present objectives of the Strategy and

key measurement issues and hear

presentations and statements from a

cross-section of stakeholders (by midMarch 1997).

3. Meet with sets of stakeholders

during FY 97 to discuss ideas and

proposals for improved measures and/or

conduct meetings of mixed stakeholders

in various locations (between March

and June 1997).

4. Meet with other Federal regulatory

and law enforcement agencies to learn

about new performance measurement

approaches being used in enforcement

and compliance programs (between

March and June 1997).

5. Hold a ‘‘capstone’’ conference with

a cross-section of stakeholders at the

end of the outreach process to identify

common understandings, areas of

agreement, and unresolved issues (by

mid-September 1997).

6. Develop a report of findings and an

implementation plan with a schedule

(by October 1, 1997).

7. Implement new ideas and

approaches in accordance with the

schedule.

III. Agenda/Focus Topics for Public

Meeting

EPA is interested in hearing and

considering ideas from regulatory

partners and a wide range of

stakeholders regarding the state of

compliance and additional ways to

measure the performance of EPA’s

enforcement and compliance assurance

program. EPA accepts the idea that its

current approach of counting annual

enforcement outputs needs to be

supplemented by other approaches that

measure improvements in

environmental quality and the state of

compliance. As such, the Agency wants

to focus the outreach effort on

identifying and implementing new

approaches rather than on the

limitations of its current approach.

Stakeholders and regulatory partners

are asked to focus on the following

issues of special interest to EPA:

1. What innovative approaches are

being used (or could be used) by other

environmental agencies, other

regulatory agencies, and law

enforcement agencies to measure the

effects of their enforcement and

compliance assurance programs?

2. What innovative approaches are

being used by regulated facilities,

companies, or trade groups and

associations to measure the effect of

their efforts to achieve and maintain

compliance and protect the

environment?

3. What can EPA use to measure the

impact of its enforcement and

compliance assurance program in lowincome/ minority population

communities?

4. How can EPA measure industry

performance in complying with

environmental laws and regulations?

5. How can EPA measure the

deterrent effect of its enforcementrelated activities, including conducting

inspections, taking enforcement actions,

and publicizing those actions?

6. How can EPA measure the impact

of compliance assistance activities and

compliance incentives, such as its audit

and self-disclosure policy?

IV. Information for Participants

Persons wishing to attend the

meeting, and/or make an oral

presentation are encouraged to offer

ideas and proposals through submission

of written comments, participation in

the public meeting organized by EPA, or

both. Prior registration is encouraged by

sending your name, affiliation, phone

and fax number. Persons interested in

presenting should send in addition to

the general registration information, a

brief statement describing your

presentation to Michelle Angelich,

Science Applications International

Corporation, 1710 Goodridge Drive, MS

1–11–8, McLean, Virginia, 22102;

telephone 703–821–4432, fax 703–903–

1373 by Friday, March 7, 1997. Persons

wishing to submit pre-filed testimony

may also send or fax such material to

Ms. Angelich. Presenters will be

notified of their time slots or panel

assignments once the final format is

determined. This meeting will be open

to the public as space permits, and a

transcript of the proceedings will be

prepared.
8016 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / Notices

Dated: February 14, 1997.

Michael M. Stahl,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 97–4336 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5692–6]

Proposed Settlement Under Section

122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act; In the

Matter of Union Steel Products, Inc.

Site

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for public comment.

SUMMARY: Notice of Settlement: in

accordance with Section 122(i)(1) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’),

notice is hereby given of a settlement

concerning past response costs at the

Union Steel Products, Inc. Site in

Albion, Michigan. This proposed

agreement has been forwarded to the

Attorney General for the required prior

written approval for this Settlement, as

set forth under section 122(g)(4) of

CERCLA.

DATES: Comments must be provided on

or before March 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should

addressed to the Docket Clerk, Mail

Code MFA–10J, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604, and

should refer to: In the Matter of Union

Steel Products, Inc. Site, Docket No.

lll.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kurt N. Lindland, Mail Code CS–29A,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

following party executed binding

certification of its consent to participate

in the settlement: Eagle-Picher

Industries, Inc.

This party will pay proceeds from a

$450,000 bankruptcy claim for response

costs related to the Union Steel

Products, Inc. Site, if the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

determines that it will not withdraw or

withhold its consent to the proposed

settlement after consideration of

comments submitted pursuant to this

notice.

U.S. EPA may enter into this

settlement under the authority of

section 122(h) of CERCLA. Section

122(h)(1) authorizes EPA to settle any

claims under section 107 of CERCLA

where such claim has not been referred

to the Department of Justice. Pursuant to

this authority, the agreement proposes

to settle with a party who is potentially

responsible for costs incurred by EPA at

the Union Steel Products, Inc. Site.

A copy of the proposed administrative

order on consent and additional

background information relating to the

settlement, including a list of parties to

the settlement, are available for review

and may be obtained in person or by

mail from Kurt N. Lindland, Mail Code

CS–29A, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency will receive written comments

relating to this settlement for thirty days

from the date of publication of this

notice.

Authority: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

sections 9601 et seq.

William E. Muno,

Director, Superfund Division.

[FR Doc. 97–4324 Filed 2–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collections Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

February 13, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commissions, 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, 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 clarify 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: Persons wishing to comment on

this information collection should

submit comments April 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications Commissions, Room

234, 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, DC

20554 or via internet to

dconway@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0108.

Title: Emergency Alert Systems EAS

Activation Report.

Form No.: FCC Form 201.

Type of Review: Revision of existing

collection.

Respondents: Broadcasting Stations.

Number of Respondents: 13,000

respondents with 1,300 annually.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2

minutes.

Total Annual Burden: 42.

Estimated costs per respondent: 0.

Needs and uses: The Emergency

Broadcast System (EBS) has been

changed to the Emergency Alert System

(EAS). This change required that all EBS

collections/forms to be corrected to

reflect the name change. The EAS

Activation Report Postcard was

developed as part of the EAS planning

program. The program is a three agency

agreement between the FCC, NOAA

National Weather Service, and the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA). The information is needed to

maintain accurate records and

documentation of broadcast stations and

cable systems in compliance with FCC

rules, and to enhance and encourage

participation in the national, state and

local EAS. Any reduction in the

frequency of this activity would result

in a proportional loss of benefit and

would cause a delay in the detection of

EAS equipment failures that could

cause the loss of national, state and

local emergency messages to the public

which in turn could cause the loss of

life and property.

OMB Number: 3060–0589.

Title: Remittance Advice Form.

Type of Review: Revision of currently

approved collection.

Form Number: FCC Form 159/159–C.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit; Individuals or households; small

business or organizations.

Number of Respondents: 213,500.

Estimated time per response: 15

minutes.