Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices 2677

(EISs) was published in FR dated April

11, 1997 (62 FR 16154).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–FHW–C40141–NY Rating

EC2, Judd Road Connector

Transportation Improvements, Funding

and COE Section 404 Permit, Village of

New York Mills, Towns of New Hartford

and Whitestown, Oneida County, NY.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about impacts

to wetlands and recommended the

Southern alignment and the single point

interchange be chosen.

ERP No. D–FHW–G40146–NM Rating

LO, New Mexico Highway 126 (NM–

126), Cuba-La Cueva Road (also Known

as Forest Highway 12) Improvement,

COE Section 404 Permit and NPDES

Permit, Sandoval and Rio Arriba

Counties, NM.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the selection of the lead agency’s

preferred alternative as described in the

DEIS.

ERP No. D–GSA–J81009–CO Rating

EC2, Denver Federal Center Master Site

Plan, Implementation, City of

Lakewood, Jefferson County, CO.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

potential water quality and wetland

impacts. EPA requested that these issues

be fully addressed in the final EIS. EPA

also requested that clarification on how

future development relate to the on

going clean-up under RCRA and

CERCLA.

ERP No. DS–COE–G32054–00 Rating

LO, Red River Waterway, Louisiana,

Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma and

Related Projects, New and Updated

Information, Red River Below Denison

Dam Levee Rehabilition,

Implementation, Hempstead, Lafayette

and Miller Counties, AR.

Summary: EPA expressed no

objection to the selection of the

mitigation measures as described in the

EIS based on the Corp’s preferred

alternative.

ERP No. DS–USA–E65040–MS Rating

EC2, Camp Shelby Continued Military

Training Activities, Use of National

Forest Lands, Updated Information,

Final Site Selection 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 expressed

environmental concerns regarding

potential wetland, wildlife habitate loss/

modification and noise impacts. EPA

requested that additional information on

these issues be provided in the final

document.

ERP No. D1–FAA–C51020–NY Rating

EC2, Terminal Doppler Weather Radar

(TDWR) Installation and Operation,

Serve the John F. Kennedy International

Airports (JFK) and La Guardia (LFA),

Site Specific, Air Station Brooklyn,

Borough of Queens, King County, NY.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

potential hazardous waste and carbon

monoxide air quality impacts. EPA

requested that FAA commit to

comprehensively characterize any

contamination prior to implementation

and do carbon monoxide hot spot

analysis.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–DOE–E09802–SC,

Savannah River Site, Shutdown of the

River Water System (DOE/EIS–0268D),

Implementation, Aiken, SC.

Summary: EPA continues to express

concerns about the project’s ecological

risks and impacts on endangered

species. EPA encourages completion of

consultations with the Natural

Resources Trustees before issuing any

CERCLA Record of Decision on the

River Water Distribution System.

ERP No. F–FHW–C40138–NY, NY–17

Highway Conversion from a Partial to a

Full Access Control Facility, Five-Mile

Point to Occanum and NY–17

Rehabilitation or Reconstruction,

Funding and COE Section 404 Permit

Issuance, Towns of Kirkwood and

Windsor, Broome County, NY.

Summary: EPA’s concerns were

addressed in the final EIS and has no

objections to implementing the project

as proposed.

ERP No. F–TVA–E06017–AL,

Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Conversion

Project, Construction and Operation,

NPDES Permit and COE Section 404

Permit, Tennessee River near

Hollywood, AL.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns primarily

involve the EIS connected issue of

impacts associated with the

construction of a natural gas pipeline

(separate NEPA issue and federal lead

agency) logically needed to adequately

supply the proposed conversion of

Bellefonte to natural gas. Proposed

coordination with local residents was

also recommended.

Regulations

ERP No. R–ACH–A99216–00, 36 CFR

part 800—Revised Regulation

Implementing Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation

Administration.

Summary: EPA’s primary issue is the

definition of ‘‘undertaking’’ EPA would

like to resolve interpretation of this

definition before the regulations are

adopted as final.

Dated: January 13, 1998.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98–1160 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5950–6]

Agency Information Collection

Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

Office of Management and Budget’s

(OMB) responses to Agency clearance

requests, in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Call Sandy Farmer at (202) 260–2740, or

E-mail at

‘‘farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov,’’ and

please refer to the appropriate EPA

Information Collection Request (ICR)

Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance

Requests

OMB Approvals

EPA ICR No. 1503.03; Data

Acquisition for Registration; was

approved 12/04/97; OMB No. 2070–

0122; expires 12/31/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1250.05; Request for

Contractor Access to TSCA Confidential

Business Information; was approved 12/

05/97; OMB No. 2070–0075; expires 12/

31/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1666.03; NESHAP

Subpart O: National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

for Commercial Ethylene Oxide

Sterilization and Fumigation

Operations; was approved 12/05/97;

OMB No. 2060–0283; expires 12/31/

2000.

EPA ICR No. 1678.03; National

Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape

Manufacturing Operations—Subpart EE;

was approved 12/05/97; OMB No. 2060–

0326; expires 12/31/2000.
2678 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 1998 / Notices

EPA ICR No. 0586.08; Preliminary

Assessment Information Rule (PAIR)—

TSCA Section 8(a); was approved 12/09/

97; OMB No. 2070–0054; expires 12/31/

2000.

EPA ICR No. 1611.03; National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chromium

Emissions from Hard and Decorative

Chromium Electroplating and

Chromium Anodizing Tanks; was

approved 12/09/97; OMB No. 2060–

0327; expires 12/31/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1287.05; Questionnaires

for Reviewing Operations and

Maintenance (O&M), Biosolids Use

(Biosolids), Combined Sewer Overflow

(CSO), and Storm Water (SW) Awards

Nominees under the NWMEAP; was

approved 12/17/97; OMB No. 2040–

0101; expires 12/31/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1805.01; National

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Chemical Recovery

Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda,

Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical

Pulp Mills (Proposed Rule); was

approved 12/22/97; OMB No. 2060–

0377; expires 12/31/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1767.02; Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements for

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants;

was approved 12/19/97; OMB No. 2060–

0374; expires 12/31/2000.

EPA ICR No. 1591.08; Regulation of

Fuels and Fuel Additives: Baseline

Requirements for Gasoline Produced by

Foreign Refiners; was approved 12/23/

97; OMB No. 2060–0277; expires 12/31/

2000.

Change in Expiration Date

EPA ICR No. 1778.01; Authorization

of Indian Tribe Hazardous Waste

Program; OMB No. 2050–0155;

expiration date was changed from 08/

31/99 to 11/30/97.

OMB Disapproval

EPA ICR 1811.01; National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant

for Polyester Polyols Production; was

disapproved by OMB 12/10/97.

Dated: January 12, 1998.

Joseph Retzer,

Division Director, Regulatory Information

Division.

[FR Doc. 98–1135 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5950–8]

Notice of Proposed Purchaser

Agreement Pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980, as Amended by the

Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice; Request for Public

Comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

122 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1980, as amended

by the Superfund amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622,

notification is hereby given that a

proposed purchaser agreement

associated with the Grant Chemical

Superfund Site in Philadelphia, PA, was

executed by the Agency on September

30, 1997, and is subject to final approval

by the Department of Justice. The

Purchaser Agreement would resolve

certain potential EPA claims under

section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607,

against National Street Associates, Inc.,

a Pennsylvania Corporation (‘‘the

Purchasers’’). The settlement would

require the purchaser to pay a principal

payment of $15,500 to the Hazardous

Substance Superfund.

For thirty (30) days following the date

of publication of this notice, the Agency

will receive written comments relating

to the proposed settlement. The

Agency’s response to any comments

received will be available for public

inspection at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 841

Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA

19107.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before February 17, 1998.

AVAILABILITY: The proposed agreement

and additional background information

relating to the settlement are available

for public inspection at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19107. A copy of the

proposed agreement may be obtained

from Suzanne Canning, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Regional Docket Clerk (3RC00), 841

Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA

19107. Comments should be forwarded

to Suzanne Canning at the address

above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rodney T. Carter (3RC21), Senior

Assistant Regional counsel, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 841

Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA

19107; (215) 566–2478.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 98–1132 Filed 1–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5949–3]

Lorentz Barrel and Drum Superfund

Site; Notice of Proposed

Administrative Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

122(i)(1) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980, as amended (‘‘CERCLA,’’

commonly referred to as Superfund), 42

U.S.C., 9622(i) and section 7003(d) of

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, as amended (‘‘RCRA’’), 42

U.S.C. 6973, notification is hereby given

of a proposed cost recovery

administrative settlement concerning

the Lorentz Barrel and Drum Superfund

Site in San Jose, CA (the ‘‘Site’’). The

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) is proposing to enter

into a de minimis settlement pursuant to

section 122(g)(4) of CERCLA. This

proposed settlement is intended to

resolve the liabilities under CERCLA

and RCRA of 42 de minimis parties for

all past and future response costs

associated with the Lorentz Barrel and

Drum Site. The names of the settling

parties are listed below in the

Supplementary Information section.

These 42 parties collectively have

agreed to pay $1,042,296.53 to EPA and

$490,492.51 to the California

Department of Toxic Substances Control

(‘‘DTSC’’).

EPA is entering into this agreement

under the authority of section 122(g)(4)

of CERCLA. Section 122(g) authorizes

early settlements with de minimis

parties to allow them to resolve their

liabilities at Superfund sites without

incurring substantial transaction costs.

A de minimis party is one that

contributed a minimal amount of

hazardous substances at a site, and

contributed hazardous substances that

are not significantly more toxic or of

significantly greater hazardous effect