67358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

August 25, 1997 (62 FR 45116 and 62

FR 45124) which apply to MWC with

capacities greater than 250 tons per day,

nor are they covered under the NSPS

and EG for MWC proposed on August

30, 1999 (64 FR 47275 and 64 FR 47233)

which apply to MWC with capacities

greater than 35 tons per day, but less

than or equal to 250 tons per day.

Residential Incinerators are those

burning municipal solid waste located

at single and multi-family dwellings,

hotels and motels.

Agricultural Waste Incinerators are

those burning agricultural waste.

Wood Waste Incinerators are those

burning wood waste which are not

covered by the proposed NSPS and EG

for CISWI or the promulgated or

proposed NSPS and EG for MWC. There

are likely to be very few of those

incinerators since the NSPS and EG for

CISWI, as well as those for MWC, cover

most incinerators burning wood waste.

Construction and Demolition Waste

Incinerators are those burning

construction and demolition waste.

Crematories and Pathological

Incinerators are those burning human or

animal tissue or cremating human or

animal remains.

Petroleum-Contaminated Soil

Treatment Facilities are those burning

petroleum-contaminated soil. Sections

104 and 127 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

exclude petroleum from the definition

of hazardous wastes; therefore, those

incineration units are not regulated as

hazardous waste treatment facilities.

Due to the limited information

available to date, we cannot state with

certainty that the OSWI category covers

only those incinerators. As additional

information is collected and assessed,

we may add or delete incinerators

within the OSWI category.

III. Schedule

As mentioned previously, we initially

adopted a schedule of November 15,

2000 for promulgating NSPS and EG for

OSWI. However, after collecting and

assessing a limited amount of

information on the various types of

OSWI, we believe there may be

substantial differences among those

incinerators which may merit further

subcategorization of OSWI for purposes

of regulation. As a result, we have

concluded that we need to collect

additional information in order to

determine the most logical and

reasonable approach for developing

NSPS and EG for OSWI. Consequently,

we are adopting a revised schedule of

November 15, 2005 for promulgation of

NSPS and EG for the OSWI to allow

sufficient time for the collection and

analysis of additional information.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 00–28807 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6612–6]

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–COE–H36110–NE Rating

EO2, Western Sarpy/Clear Creek Flood

Reduction Study Including

Environmental Restoration Component,

Lower Platte River and Tributaries,

Saunders and Sarpy Counties, NE.

Summary: EPA raised objections,

noting the potential for significant

adverse impacts to natural resources,

endangered species, and flood plain

values. EPA encouraged the Corps to

examine non-structural alternatives to

lessen impacts.

ERP No. D–FHW–E40783–SC Rating

EC2, Dave Lyle Boulevard Extension,

New Location from the S.C. Route 161/

Dave Lyle Boulevard Intersection in

York County to S.C. Route 75, in the

vicinity of the U.S. Route 521/S.C., York

County Metropolitan Road Corridor

Project, Funding, York and Lancaster

Counties, SC.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding potential project impacts

related to surface water, wetlands, and

threatened and endangered species.

ERP No. D–FHW–H40170–MO Rating

LO, U.S. Route 50 East-Central Corridor

Study, Highway Improvements from

Route 50 to Route 63 east of Jefferson

City, Major Transportation Investment

Analysis, Osage, Gasconade, and

Franklin Counties, MO.

Summary: EPA has no objection to the

project as proposed.

ERP No. D–TVA–E39053–TN Rating

EO2, Future Water Supply Needs in the

Upper Duck River Basin, NPDES Permit

and COE Section 404 Permit, Bedford,

Marshall, Maury and Williamson

Counties, TN.

Summary: EPA expressed objections

since EPA does not believe additional

source water is needed immediately,

especially if conservation measures are

implemented during droughts. If

selection of a water supply alternative is

locally preferred, we recommend

implementation of Alternative C over

Alternative E if pipeline impacts are

minimal or a modification of Alternative

E, if feasible, by approximately 2025.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–FHW–F40383–WI WI–113

Wisconsin River Crossing at Merrimac,

Improvements, US Coast Guard and

COE Section 10 and 404 Permits,

Columbia and Sauk Counties, WI.

Summary: EPA has no objections with

the preferred alternative.

ERP No. F–FHW–F40387–OH

Lancaster Bypass (FAI–US 22/US 33–

9.59/9.95) Construction, Funding,

Greenfield, Hocking, Berne and Pleasant

Townships, Fairfield County, OH.

Summary: EPA’s previous concerns

have been addressed; EPA does not

object to project implementation.

Dated: November 6, 2000.

Ken Mittelholtz,

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00–28839 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6612–5]

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 October 30,

2000 through November 3, 2000

pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 000374, FINAL EIS, FHW, CA,

US–7 Expressway Project,

Construction between CA–98 to

Interstate 8, Improve Access to the

new Calexico East Port of Entry,

Funding and COE Section 404 Permit,

Imperial County, CA, Due: December

4, 2000, Contact: Jeffery S. Lewis (916)

498–5035. This Notice of Availability

should have appeared in the 11/3/

2000 FR. The Official Wait Period