24176 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / Notices

of the ten EPA Regions, and invite one

or two representatives from each State

to participate along with Regional

personnel. At the request of the States

which participated in the pilot

roundtable in Region III, the Agency

will provide the interview questions in

the form of a questionnaire to each of

the participants in advance of the

roundtable so that each participating

organization may prepare for the

roundtables and afterwards prepare

detailed written responses. The Agency

will conduct the roundtables as a group

discussion of the questionnaire topics

with managers and/or inspectors from

the Region and each of the states in the

Region. Participants will then return to

their states, distribute the questionnaire

across media organizations, complete

written responses to the questionnaire,

and then forward the responses to EPA.

State involvement and participation is

essential if the CIP is to succeed.

Consultation and coordination with

each State participating in the round

table process is an integral part of the

overall project design. Each

participating State will receive

opportunities to comment on all aspects

of the Project, including the design and

the content of our discussion questions

and work products, and how the new

information is used. EPA has extended

similar opportunities for involvement to

the Environmental Council of States and

all of the major State environmental

associations. Initial responses to the

Project from the States have been

positive. In general, the States appear to

share EPA’s interest in exploring for

new sources of compliance information.

The States will receive access to all of

the compliance information gathered by

EPA through the Project, whether from

federal, state, or non-governmental

sources.

Responses to the information

collection request are voluntary and not

required to obtain or retain any benefit.

The Agency will ask persons who

participate in the CIP not to refer to

specific persons, facilities, or cases by

name, nor collect, as part of this project,

references to specific persons, facilities,

or cases in any form, unless such

information is already in the public

record. The Agency will not, and in fact

will be unable to, use compliance

information collected through the CIP to

form compliance conclusions, rank or

index performance of specific persons,

facilities, or cases. The Agency will not

ask for, nor collect, any confidential

business information (CBI). All

information submitted to the Agency for

which a claim of confidentiality is made

will be safeguarded. 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 Federal

Register document required under 5

CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on

this collection of information was

published on 12/30/97. No comments

were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public

reporting and recordkeeping burden for

this collection of information is

estimated to average 117 hours per

responding entity. 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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: States.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

50.

Frequency of Response: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

5,850 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost

Burden: $260,667.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the following addresses.

Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1802.01 in

any correspondence.

Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division (2137), 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460;

and

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: April 27, 1998.

Joseph Retzer,

Director, Regulatory Information Division.

[FR Doc. 98–11660 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5491–3]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 OR (202) 564–7153.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements Filed April 20, 1998

Through April 24, 1998

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 980142, Final EIS, AFS, ID,

Sandpoint Noxious Weed Control

Project, Implementation, Proposing to

control noxious weeds on 46 sites,

Idaho Panhandles National Forests,

Sandpoint Ranger District, Bonner

County, ID, Due: June 01, 1998,

Contact: Betsy Hammet (208) 263–

5111.

EIS No. 980143, Draft EIS, OSM, TN,

Fall Creek Falls Petition Evaluation

Document, Implementation, Designate

the Land as Unsuitable for Surface

Coal Mining Operation, Van Buren

and Bledsoe Counties, TN, Due: July

30, 1998, Contact: Sam K. Bae (202)

208–2633.

EIS No. 980144, Final EIS, FRC, WA,

Skagit River Basin Hydroelectric

Projects, Eight Projects—(FERC. No.

10100) (FERC. No. 4437) (FERC. No.

4376) (FERC. No. 9787) (FERC. No.

10311) (FERC. No. 6984) and FERC

No. 10269 and No. 10416)

Construction and Operation,

Licensing, Whatcom and Skagit

Counties, WA, Due: June 01, 1998,

Contact: Gordon Warren (202) 219–

2836.

EIS No. 980145, Legislative Draft, COE,

WA, Howard A. Hanson Dam (HHD

Additional Water Storage (AWS)

Phase I Project, Construction and

Operation, Green River Basin, Pierce

and King Counties, WA, Due: June 15,

1998, Contact: Ms. Kris Loll (206)

764–3548.

EIS No. 980146, Draft Supplement, AFS,

SD, Anchor Hill Mine Expansion

Project in Gilt Edge Mine, Additional

Information and Clarification, Plan-ofOperations, Approval Black Hills

National Forest, SD, Due: June 15,

1998, Contact: Don Murray (605) 578–

2744.

EIS No. 980147, Final EIS, USN, CA,

Mare Island, Naval Shipyard Disposal

and Reuse, Implementation, City of

Valley, Solano County, CA, Due: June

01, 1998, Contact: Jerry Hemstock

(650) 244–3023.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 84 / Friday, May 1, 1998 / Notices 24177

Dated: April 28, 1998.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98–11658 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5491–4]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared April 13, 1998 Through April

17, 1998 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 10, 1998 (63 FR

17856).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–L65300–AK Rating

LO, Canal-Hoya Timber Sale,

Implementation, Stikine Area, Tongass

National Forest, Value Comparison Unit

(VCU), AK.

Summary: EPA used a screening tool

to conduct a limited review of this

action. Based upon the screen, EPA does

not foresee having any environmental

objections to the proposed project.

Therefore, EPA will not be conducting

a detailed review.

ERP No. D–BLM–L08054–AK Rating

LO, Northern Intertie Project,

Construction of 230 kV Transmission

Line from Healy to Fairbanks, AK,

Application for Right-of-Way Grant,

Gold Valley Electric Association, AK.

Summary: EPA used a screening tool

to conduct a limited review of this

action. Based upon the screen, EPA does

not foresee having any environmental

objections to the proposed project.

Therefore, EPA will not be conducting

a detailed review.

ERP No. D–NOA–E39041–SC Rating

EC2, Marine Environmental Health

Research Laboratory (MEHRL),

Construction and Operation of Premiere,

High Technology and Marine Research

Center, Approval of Permits, Charleston

County, SC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns and about lack

of discussion on fuel storage tanks, spill

prevention and containment strategies

in the event of a tank runover and

impacts from running laboratory

ventilation hoods.

ERP No. D–UMC–K11088–CA Rating

EO2, Tustin Marine Corps Air Station

(MCAS) Disposal and Reuse,

Implementation, Orange County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections due to

projected adverse impacts to wetlands

and other jurisdictional waters. EPA

requested that the final EIS demonstrate

that all practicable measures were taken

to avoid and minimize the placement of

fill in wetlands and other aquatic

resources. EPA, also expressed concern

about potential impacts associated with

the use of fertilizers and pesticides at

the golf course and recommended that

final EIS examine reasonable

opportunities to reduce the use of

fertilizers and pesticides.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–BLM–J01076–WY, Powder

River (WYW136142) and Thundercloud

(WYW136458) Coal Lease Applications,

Federal Coal Leasing, Campbell and

Converse Counties, WY.

Summary: EPA’s review has not

identified any potential environmental

impacts.

ERP No. F–BLM–K67046–NV,

Olinghouse Mine Project, Construction

of Two Open Pits, Waste Dump, Haul

Road and Cyanide Heap Leach Pads,

Plan-of-Operation Approval Carson

City, Washoe County, NV.

Summary: EPA concerns were

addressed in the Final EIS. EPA still

have environmental concerns about

potential impacts to nearby springs and

potentially adverse pit lake chemistry.

EPA requested that the Record of

Decision (ROD) include specific

mitigation and monitoring provisions on

these two issues.

ERP No. F–NOA–L91001–AK, Juneau

Consolidated Facility, Space for the

University of Alaska Fairbanks School

of Fisheries and Ocean Science (UAF),

Possible Site Lena Point, Fisheries

Management Operation, ‘Vision for

2005’, Juneau, AK.

Summary: EPA continues to have

environmental concerns regarding

wastewater treatment at the proposed

facility and the Record of Decision

should specify whether the facility will

tie into the existing City and Borough of

Juneau treatment system or operate an

on-site treatment plant.

ERP No. F–US–J11014–CO United

States Army Garrison, Fitzsimons

(Formerly Fitzsimons Army Medical

Center) Disposal and Reuse for BRAC–

95, Implementation, City of Aurora,

Denver County, CO.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections.

ERP No. FS–USA–E65040–MS, Camp

Shelby Continued Military Training

Activities, Use of National Forest Lands,

Updated Information, Final Site

Selected Authorization for

Implementation of the Proposed G. V.

(Sonny) Montgomery Ranges, Special

Use Permit, DeSoto National Forest,

Forrest, George and Perry Counties, MS.

Summary: EPA’s initial comments on

developing this training range have

largely been addressed by additional

data/exposition. However, certain

concerns will only be verified after the

range becomes operational. Therefore,

EPA will continue to participate in the

interagency team, which will be

monitoring the facility’s progress.

Dated: April 28, 1998.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98–11659 Filed 4–30–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPP–00536; FRL–5788–6]

State FIFRA Issues Research and

Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Pesticide

Operations and Management Working

Committee; Open Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The State FIFRA Issues

Research and Evaluation

Group(SFIREG) Pesticide Operations

and Management Working Committee

will hold a 2-day meeting, May 18 and

19, 1998. This notice announces the

location and times for the meeting and

sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

The meetings are open to the public.

DATES: The SFIREG Working Committee

on Pesticide Operations and

Management will meet on Monday, May

18, 1998, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

and Tuesday, May 19, 1998, from 8:30

a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at:

The Claremont Hotel, 2000 Fourth

Avenue at Virginia, Seattle, WA 98121.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Elaine Y. Lyon, Field and External

Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs (7506C) Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Office location

and telephone number: 1921 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington-Crystal City,

VA 22202, CM–II, (703) 305–5306, (703)

308–1850 (fax); e-mail:

lyon.elaine@epamail.epa.gov.