18628 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Notices

water discharges, and BMPs constructed to

control storm water runoff, are not likely, and

will not be likely to adversely affect species

identified in Addendum H of this permit.

To do this, please follow steps 1 through

4 below.

Step 1: Review the County Species List to

Determine if any Species are Located in the

Discharging Facility County

If no species are listed in a facility’s county

or if a facility’s county is not found on the

list, an applicant is eligible for construction

general permit coverage and may indicate in

the NOI that no species are found in

proximity and provide the necessary

certification. If species are located in the

county, follow step 2 below. Where a facility

is located in more than one county, the lists

for all counties should be reviewed.

Step 2: Determine if any Species may be

Found ‘‘in Proximity’’ to the Facility

A species is in proximity to a facility’s

storm water discharge when the species is:

• Located in the path or immediate area

through which or over which contaminated

point source storm water flows from

industrial activities to the point of discharge

into the receiving water.

• Located in the immediate vicinity of, or

nearby, the point of discharge into receiving

waters.

• Located in the area of a site where storm

water BMPs are planned or are to be

constructed.

The area in proximity to be searched/

surveyed for listed species will vary with the

size of the facility, the nature and quantity

of the storm water discharges, and the type

of receiving waters. Given the number of

facilities potentially covered by the

construction general permit, no specific

method to determine whether species are in

proximity is required for permit coverage

under the construction general permit.

Instead, applicants should use the method or

methods which best allow them to determine

to the best of their knowledge whether

species are in proximity to their particular

facility. These methods may include:

• Conducting visual inspections: This

method may be particularly suitable for

facilities that are smaller in size, facilities

located in non-natural settings such as highly

urbanized areas or industrial parks where

there is little or no nature habitat; and

facilities that discharge directly into

municipal storm water collection systems.

For other facilities, a visual survey of the

facility site and storm water drainage areas

may be insufficient to determine whether

species are likely to be located in proximity

to the discharge.

• Contacting the nearest State Wildlife

Agency or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) offices. Many endangered and

threatened species are found in well-defined

areas or habitats. That information is

frequently known to state or federal wildlife

agencies. FWS has offices in every state.

NMFS has regional offices in: Gloucester,

Massachusetts; St. Petersburg, Florida; Long

Beach, California; Portland, Oregon; and

Juneau, Alaska.

• Contacting local/regional conservation

groups. These groups inventory species and

their locations and maintain lists of sightings

and habitats.

• Conducting a formal biological survey.

Larger facilities with extensive storm water

discharges may choose to conduct biological

surveys as the most effective way to assess

whether species are located in proximity and

whether there are likely adverse effects.

If no species are in proximity, an applicant

is eligible for construction general permit

coverage and may indicate that in the NOI

and provide the necessary certification. If

listed species are found in proximity to a

facility, applicants must follow step 3 below.

Step 3: Determine If Species Could Be

Adversely Affected by the Facility’s Storm

Water Discharges or by BMPS To Control

Those Discharges.

Scope of Adverse Effects: Potential adverse

effects from storm water include:

• Hydrological. Storm water may cause

siltation, sedimentation or induce other

changes in the receiving waters such as

temperature, salinity or pH. These effects

will vary with the amount of storm water

discharged and the volume and condition of

the receiving water. Where a storm water

discharge constitutes a minute portion of the

total volume of the receiving water, adverse

hydrological effects are less likely.

• Habitat. Storm water may drain or

inundate listed species habitat.

• Toxicity. In some cases, pollutants in

storm water may have toxic effects on listed

species.

The scope of effects to consider will vary

with each site. Applicants must also consider

the likelihood of adverse effects on species

from any BMPs to control storm water. Most

adverse impacts from BMPs are likely to

occur from the construction activities.

Using earlier ESA authorizations for

construction general permit eligibility: In

some cases, a facility may be eligible for

construction general permit coverage because

actual or potential adverse affects were

addressed or discounted through an earlier

ESA authorization. Examples of such

authorization include:

• An earlier ESA section 7 consultation for

that facility.

• A section 10(a) permit issued for the

facility.

• An area-wide Habitat Conservation Plan

applicable to that facility.

• A clearance letter from the Services

(which discounts the possibility of an

adverse impacts from the facility).

In order for applicants to use an earlier

ESA authorization to meet eligibility

requirements: (1) The authorization must

adequately address impacts for storm water

discharges and BMPs from the facility on

endangered and threatened species, (2) It

must be current because there have been no

subsequent changes in facility operations or

circumstances which might impact species in

ways not considered in the earlier

authorization, and (3) The applicant must

comply with any requirements from those

authorizations to avoid or mitigate adverse

effects to species. Applicants who wish to

pursue this approach should carefully review

documentation for those authorizations

ensure that the above conditions are met.

If adverse effects are not likely, an

applicant is eligible for construction general

permit coverage and may indicate in the NOI

that species are found in proximity and

provide the necessary certification. If adverse

effects are likely, follow step 4 below.

Step 4: Determine If Measures Can Be

Implemented To Avoid Any Adverse Effects

If an applicant determines that adverse

effects are likely, it can receive coverage if

appropriate measures are undertaken to

avoid or eliminate any actual or potential

adverse affects prior to applying for permit

coverage. These measures may involve

relatively simple changes to facility

operations such as re-routing a storm water

discharge to bypass an area where species are

located.

At this stage, applicants may wish to

contact the FWS and/or NMFS to see what

appropriate measures might be suitable to

avoid or eliminate adverse impacts to

species.

If applicants adopt these measures, they

must continue to abide by them during the

course of permit coverage.

If appropriate measures are not available,

the applicant is not eligible at that time for

coverage under the construction general

permit. Applicants should contact the

appropriate EPA regional office about either:

• Entering into Section 7 consultation in

order to obtain construction general permit

coverage, or

• Obtaining an individual NPDES storm

water permit.

[FR Doc. 97–9695 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collections

Approved by Office of Management

and Budget

April 8, 1997.

The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) has received Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

approval for the following public

information collections pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.

L. 104–13. 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

control number. For further information

contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal

Communications Commission, (202)

418–1379.

Federal Communications Commission

OMB Control No.: 3060–0736.

Expiration Date: 03/31/2000.

Title: Implementation of the NonAccounting Safeguards of Section 271

and 272 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 96–

149.

Form No.: N/A.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Notices 18629

Estimated Annual Burden: 5

respondents; 24.6 hours per response

(avg.); 123 total annual burden hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and

Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

Description: OMB approved the

collections of information contained in

the Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (FNPRM) issued in CC

Docket No. 96–149. In CC Docket 96–

149, the Commission proposed that Bell

Operating Companies (BOCs) make

certain information disclosures publicly

available. The disclosure includes the

amount of time, measured in

percentages and averages, that it takes a

BOC to respond to its section 272

affiliates requests for service. The

FNPRM tentatively concluded that

BOCs must submit an annual affidavit to

the Commission certifying, inter alia,

that they are maintaining the

information according to the required

format. All of the collections would be

used to ensure that BOCs comply with

the nondiscrimination requirement of

section 272(e)(1) under the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. The

collected information would be made

publicly available.

Public reporting burden for the

collections of information is as noted

above. Send comments regarding the

burden estimate or any other aspect of

the collections of information, including

suggestions for reducing the burden to

the Records Management Branch,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

Federal Communications Commission

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9727 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License;

Applicants

Notice is hereby given that the

following applicants have filed with the

Federal Maritime Commission

applications for licenses as ocean freight

forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app.

1718 and 46 CFR 510).

Persons knowing of any reason why

any of the following applicants should

not receive a license are requested to

contact the Office of Freight Forwarders,

Federal Maritime Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20573.

Frank J. Ciofalo, 122 Resolute Lane, Port

Ludlow, WA 98365, Sole Proprietor

Reefco Logistics, Inc., 5301 Quail

Meadows Drive, Raleigh, NC 27609,

Officer: Ernest H. Beauregard

Dated: April 11, 1997.

Joseph C. Polking,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–9796 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices;

Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or

Bank Holding Companies

The notificants listed below have

applied under the Change in Bank

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank

holding company. The factors that are

considered in acting on the notices are

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for

immediate inspection at the Federal

Reserve Bank indicated. Once the

notices have been accepted for

processing, they will also be available

for inspection at the offices of the Board

of Governors. Interested persons may

express their views in writing to the

Reserve Bank indicated for that notice

or to the offices of the Board of

Governors. Comments must be received

not later than April 30, 1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411

Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-

2034:

1. Dixie Mahurin, Bowling Green,

Kentucky; to acquire an additional 15.95

percent, for a total of 27.97 percent, and

Petter and Dixie Mahurin, Bowling

Green, Kentucky, acting in concert, to

acquire an additional 21.27 percent, for

a total of 26.92 percent, of the voting

shares of First Cecilian Bancorp, Inc.,

Cecilia, Kentucky, and thereby

indirectly acquire Cecilian Bank,

Cecilia, Kentucky.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

(Genie D. Short, Vice President) 2200

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-

2272:

1. Walter L. Cox, Sr., Naples, Texas; to

acquire an additional 40.8 percent, for a

total of 47.1 percent, of the voting shares

of Morris County Bankshares,

Incorporated, Naples, Texas, and

thereby indirectly acquire Morris

County National Bank, Naples, Texas.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, April 10, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–9788 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and

Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

The companies listed in this notice

have applied to the Board for approval,

pursuant to the Bank Holding Company

Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.)

(BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part

225), and all other applicable statutes

and regulations to become a bank

holding company and/or to acquire the

assets or the ownership of, control of, or

the power to vote shares of a bank or

bank holding company and all of the

banks and nonbanking companies

owned by the bank holding company,

including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well

as other related filings required by the

Board, are available for immediate

inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank

indicated. Once the application has

been accepted for processing, it will also

be available for inspection at the offices

of the Board of Governors. Interested

persons may express their views in

writing on the standards enumerated in

the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

proposal also involves the acquisition of

a nonbanking company, the review also

includes whether the acquisition of the

nonbanking company complies with the

standards in section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking

activities will be conducted throughout

the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments

regarding each of these applications

must be received at the Reserve Bank

indicated or the offices of the Board of

Governors not later than May 9, 1997.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of

Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand,

Vice President) 250 Marquette Avenue,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-2171:

1. Norwest Corporation, Minneapolis,

Minnesota; to acquire 100 percent of the

voting shares of The First National

Bankshares, Inc., Tucumcari, New

Mexico, and thereby indirectly acquire

The First National Bank of Tucumcari,

Tucumcari, New Mexico.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, April 10, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–9789 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve

System.