Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices 69511

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

Boynton, (703) 603–9052, Local

Governments Reimbursement Project

Officer, Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response (5204–G), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC

20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Affected entities: Entities potentially

affected by this action are Local

Governments that apply for

reimbursement under this program.

Title: Application for Reimbursement

to Local Governments for Emergency

Response to Hazardous Substance

Releases Under CERCLA section 123,

EPA ICR #1424.04, OMB Control #2050–

0077 which will expire on March 1,

2001.

Abstract: The Agency requires

applicants for reimbursement under this

program authorized under section 123

of CERCLA to submit an application

that demonstrates consistency with

program eligibility requirements. This is

necessary to ensure proper use of the

Superfund. EPA reviews the

information to ensure compliance with

all statutory and program requirements.

The applicants are local governments

who have incurred expenses, above and

beyond their budgets, for hazardous

substance response. Submission of this

information is voluntary and to the

applicant’s benefit. 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.

The 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:

Burden item

Average hours

per

application

Read Instructions a ................ 1

Gather Information b .............. 3

Compile Information c ............ 3

Complete Application d .......... 1

File and Maintain Information e ................................... 1

Total Estimated Burden

Hours Per Application ... 9

Total Estimated Number of

Applications Submitted

by All Applicants per

Year ............................... × 200

Total Estimated Annual

Burden Hours ................ 1800

Total Estimated Cost Burden

to Responders f ................. $ 23,300

aTime to read or hear instructions. This includes the time which will be needed by applicants to familiarize themselves with the requirements for requesting reimbursement and

the instructions for completing the application

form. bTime to gather information. This includes

the time necessary to collect various reports

from files and extract pertinent information and

find additional reference materials and information. cTime to compile information. This includes

the time necessary to assemble information

specific to the response for which reimbursement is being sought. This may include interviewing first responders and ascertaining the

number of work-hours involved in the response. dTime to complete application. This includes

the time required to enter the pertinent information on the application form in accordance

with the line-by-line instructions. eTime to file and maintain information. This

includes the time needed for preparing file

folders, indexes, and filing. fEstimated hourly rate is $18.50. This estimate takes into consideration that the application may be prepared by a secretary, Fire

Chief, County Clerk, Health Professional, or

other administrative staff.

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: October 2, 2000.

Larry Reed,

Acting Director, Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response.

[FR Doc. 00–29506 Filed 11–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6612–8]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared 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–AFS–L39057–OR Rating

EC2, Rimrock Ecosystem Restoration

Project, To Promote Healthy and

Sustainable Watershed Conditions,

Implementation, Umatilla National

Forest, Heppner Ranger District, Grant,

Morrow and Wheeler Counties, OR.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding air quality due to prescribed

burning, funding of K–V projects, and

roads. EPA requested that the EIS

commit to completing restoration

projects; describe the smoke

management program and provide

information on road density.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65365–ID Rating

EC2, Swan Flat Timber Sale, Proposal to

Cut and Haul Sawtimber, Caribou

National Forest, Land Resource

Management Plan (LRMP), Montpelier

Ranger District, Bear Lake County, ID.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding road obliteration, air quality,

harvesting in a roadless area, and beetle

infestation. EPA requested clarification

and additional information on these

issues.

ERP No. D–BLM–K67053–CA Rating

EC2, Mesquite Mine Expansion Project,

To Expand the Existing Open-Pit, HeapLeach, and Precious Metal Mine,

Federal Mine Plan of Operations

Approval, Conditional Use Permits and

Reclamation Plan Approval, Imperial

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

based on the project’s predicted longterm pit water quality, potential

69512 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices

ecological risk, and impacts to waters of

the U.S. EPA recommended additional

information in the FEIS regarding pit

water quality predictions, mitigation,

reclamation and bonding, and inclusion

of the waste rock sampling and disposal

plan and a demonstration of compliance

with the Clean Water Act section

404(b)(1) guidelines.

ERP No. D–FRC–E08020–00 Rating

EO2, Gulfstream Natural Gas System

Project, Construction and Operation, To

Provide Natural Gas Transportation

Service, AL, MS and FL.

Summary: EPA is concerned that the

Gulfstream proposal would impact

forested wetlands and marine hard

‘‘live’’ bottoms along the proposed

pipeline route. Hard bottoms are

essentially ‘‘unmitigatable’’. EPA also

suggested that only one of the two

competing alignments across the Gulf of

Mexico (separate EISs) should be

potentially certificated by FERC

(Gulfstream vs. Buccaneer) or only one

larger joint effort with modification and

further mitigation.

ERP No. DR–BLM–K65213–NV Rating

LO, Black Rock Desert area. Minor

issues were raised concerning

construction of fee collection stations

and monitoring for OHV impacts.

Summary: EPA expressed a lack of

objections to BLM’s preferred

management plan for the Black Rock

Desert area. Minor issues were raised

concerning construction of fee

collection stations and monitoring for

OHV impacts.

ERP No. DR–FAA–K51037–CA Rating

EC2, Metropolitan Oakland

International Airport (MOIA), Airport

Development Plan (ADP), Reevaluation

of the Forecasts and Planning

Assumptions in the ADP, Airport

Layout Plan Approval, Funding and

COE section 404 and 10 Permits

Issuance, Port of Oakland, Alameda

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns on

cumulative noise, air quality and

wetland impacts; impacts to areas

regulated under section 10 of the Rivers

and Harbors Act; and environmental

justice impacts. EPA also expressed

concern with the narrow range of

alternatives and requested that one

alternative eliminated from

consideration be analyzed in detail.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–E65052–KY Daniel

Boone National Forest, Implementation,

Salvage Harvest Due to 1998 Storm

Damage Timber, McCreary and Pulaski

County, KY.

Summary: EPA remains concerned

about degradation of the Rock Creek and

Marsh Creek waterways from erosion

and siltation associated with road

building and forestry activities in these

areas. Adherence to Best Management

Practices and preventing use of offhighway vehicles in these areas should

be vigorously implemented and strictly

monitored to ensure that water quality

and in-stream habitat are fully

protected.

ERP No. F–BIA–K65223–CA Cortina

Integrated Solid Waste Management

Project, Development and Operation,

Approval of Land Lease Cortina Indian

Rancheria of Wintin Indians, Colusa

County, CA.

Summary: The Final EIS addressed

the concerns raised by EPA on the Draft

EIS. EPA requested that commitments

and mitigation measures in the FEIS be

reflected in BIA’s Record of Decision.

Because the project is on tribal land,

EPA noted its continuing regulatory

and/or permit role under several federal

laws, including the Clean Water Act, the

Clean Air Act, and the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act.

ERP No. F–NPS–J61102–00

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National

Parks and John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

Memorial Parkway Winter Use Plan,

Implementation, Fremont County, ID,

Gallatin and Park Counties, MT and

Park and Teton Counties, WY.

Summary: EPA’s review has

concluded that the preferred alternative

for this project would adequately

remedy the on-going significant impacts

to environmental resources and human

health in these Parks. The document

provides a reasonable range of

alternatives and discloses, in detail, the

environmental effects of each

alternative.

ERP No. F–SFW–K99029–NV Clark

County Multiple Species Habitat

Conservation Plan, Issuance of a Permit

to Allow Incidental Take-of-79 Species,

Clark County, NV.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. FS–COE–K32046–CA Port of

Los Angeles Channel Deepening Project,

To Improve Navigation and Disposal of

Dredge Material for the Inner Harbor

Channels, Los Angeles County, CA.

Summary: EPA’s review found the

Final Supplemental EIS to be generally

responsive to concerns EPA raised on

the Draft Supplemental EIS. EPA

provided comments on toxic air

contaminants (hazardous air pollutants)

associated with the project and the

suitability of dredged materials for

aquatic or ocean disposal. EPA asked

the Corps to explore the feasibility of

reasonable mitigation measures for

reducing emissions of air toxics.

Dated: November 14, 2000.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00–29528 Filed 11–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6612–7]

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 November 6,

2000 through November 9, 2000

pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 000381, Final EIS, BOP, CA,

Lassen County Federal Correctional

Institution (FCI), Construction and

Operation, To House Median-Security

Inmates and Federal Prison Camp,

Possible Site is Southwest Site,

Lassen County, CA, Due: December

18, 2000, Contact: David J. Dorworth

(202) 514–6470.

EIS No. 000382, Final EIS, SFW, CA,

Trinity River Mainstem Fishery

Restoration, To Restore and Maintain

the Natural Production of

Anadromous Fish, Trinity and

Humboldt Counties, CA, Due:

December 18, 2000, Contact: George

Guillen (707) 822–7201.

EIS No. 000383, Draft EIS, BLM, NM,

Sierra and Otero Counties Resource

Management Plan Amendment and

Federal Fluid Minerals Leasing and

Development, Implementation, Sierra

and Otero Counties, NM, Due:

February 20, 2001, Contact: Tom

Philips (505) 525–4377.

EIS No. 000384, Draft Supplement,

FHW, CO, Colorado Forest Highway

80, Guanella Pass Road (also known

as Park County Road 62, Clear Creek

County Road 381 and Forest

Development Road 118), Additional

Alternative includes Rehabilitation,

Light Reconstruction and Full

Construction, Funding, Clear Creek

and Park Counties, CO, Due: January

16, 2001, Contact: Richard Cushing

(303) 716–2138.

EIS No. 000385, Final EIS, COE, NB,

Sand Creek Watershed Restoration

Project, To Develop Environmental

Restoration, City of Wahoo, Saunders

County, NB, Due: December 18, 2000,

Contact: Kevin Mayberry (402) 221–

4020.

EIS No. 000386, Final EIS, COE, CA,

Murrieta Creek Flood Control and