28380 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Notices

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions

and protests should be filed on or before

May 29, 1998. Protests will be

considered by the Commission to

determine the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceedings.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13691 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6101–7]

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Submission for OMB

Review, Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this document announces

that the following Information

Collection Request (ICR) has been

forwarded to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review and

approval: Superfund Site Evaluation

and Hazard Ranking System, OMB

Control No. 2050–0005 to expire on July

31, 1998. The ICR describes the nature

of the information collection and its

expected cost and burden; where

appropriate, it includes the actual data

collection instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 22, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone

(202) 260–2740, by email at

farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or

download off the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA ICR

No. 1488.04.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Superfund Site Evaluation and

Hazard Ranking System, (EPA ICR No.

1488.04, OMB Control No. 2050–0005)

expiring July 31, 1998. This ICR

requests an extension of a currently

approved collection.

Abstract: Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA, 1980 and 1986) amends

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) to

include criteria prioritizing releases

throughout the U.S. before undertaking

remedial action at uncontrolled

hazardous waste sites. The Hazard

Ranking System (HRS) is a model that

is used to evaluate the relative threats to

human health and the environment

posed by actual or potential releases of

hazardous substances, pollutants, and

contaminants. The HRS criteria take

into account the population at risk, the

hazard potential of the substances, as

well as the potential for contamination

of drinking water supplies, direct

human contact, destruction of sensitive

ecosystems, damage to natural resources

affecting the human food chain,

contamination of surface water used for

recreation or potable water

consumption, and contamination of

ambient air.

Under this ICR the States will apply

the HRS by identifying and classifying

those releases that warrant further

investigation. The HRS score is crucial

since it is the primary mechanism used

to determine whether a site is eligible to

be included on the National Priorities

List (NPL). Only sites on the NPL are

eligible for Superfund-financed

remedial actions.

HRS scores are derived from the

sources described in this information

collection, including field

reconnaissance, taking samples at the

site, and reviewing available reports and

documents. States record the collected

information on HRS documentation

worksheets and include this in the

supporting reference package. States

then send the package to the EPA region

for a completeness and accuracy review,

and the Region then sends it to EPA

Headquarters for a final quality

assurance review. If the site scores

above the NPL designated cutoff value,

and if it meets the other criteria for

listing, it is then eligible to be proposed

on the NPL.

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 Notice

required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d),

soliciting comments on this collection

of information was published on March

4, 1998 (63 FR 10607). Three requests

for copies of the ICR were received;

however, EPA received no comments.

Burden Statement: Depending on the

number and type of activities

performed, burden for the collection of

site assessment information is estimated

to range from 53 to 1,899 hours per site.

The number of hours required to assess

a particular site depends on how far a

site progresses through the site

assessment process. Sites where only a

pre-CERCLIS screening is performed

will typically require approximately 53

hours, while sites that progress to NPL

listing will require approximately 1,899

hours. The burden estimates include

reporting activities and minimal record

keeping activities. The States are

reimbursed 100 percent of their costs,

except for record maintenance. The ICR

does not impose burden for HRS

activities on local governments or

private businesses. 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: State agencies or Indian

Tribes requesting oversight of the site.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 60

States or Indian Tribes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 203,373 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Cost

Burden: 0 (reimbursed by EPA).

Frequency of Response: Periodically/

Per SARA Section 116(b).

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. 1488.04 and

OMB Control No. 2050–0005 in any

correspondence.

Ms. Sandy Farmer,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

OPPE Regulatory Information Division

(2137),

401 M Street, S.W.,

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 1998 / Notices 28381

Dated: May 18, 1998.

Richard T. Westlund,

Acting Director, Regulatory Information

Division.

[FR Doc. 98–13786 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5492–1]

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 May 11, 1998 Through May 15,

1998

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 980178, Final EIS, NOA, MA,

New Bedford Harbor Environment

Restoration Plan, Implementation,

Acushnet River, Buzzards Bay, MA,

Due: June 22, 1998, Contact: Rolland

A. Schmitten (301) 713–2239.

EIS No. 980179, Final EIS, AFS, MT,

Meadow Timber Sales,

Implementation, Timber Harvesting,

Road Construction and Prescribed

Burning, Fortine Ranger District,

Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln

County, MT, Due: June 22, 1998,

Contact: Joleen Durham (406) 882–

4451.

EIS No. 980180, Draft EIS, FHW, MO,

US 60 Highway Project, Improvement

from East of Willow Springs to West

of Van Buren, Funding, NPDES

Permit and COE 404 Permit, Howell,

Shannon and Carter Counties, MO,

Due: July 6, 1998, Contact: Don

Neumann (573) 636–7104.

EIS No. 980181, Final EIS, USA, MD,

PA, MD, PA, Fort Ritchie Disposal

and Reuse for BRAC of 638 Acres,

Implementation, Frederick and

Washington Counties, MD and Adams

and Franklin Counties, PA, Due: June

22, 1998, Contact: Clifford Kidd (410)

962–3100.

EIS No. 980182, Draft EIS, BLM, CA,

Telephone Flat Geothermal Power

Plant within the Glass Mountain

Known Geothermal Resource Area,

Construction, Operation and

Decommissioning of a 48 megawatt

(MW) Geothermal Plant, Modoc

National Forest, Siskiyou County, CA,

Due: July 22, 1998, Contact: Randall

Sharp (520) 233–8848.

EIS No. 980183, Final Supplement EIS,

FHW, NC, Smith Creek Parkway,

Updated and Supplemental

Information, Construction from Third

Street to Kornegay Avenue, U.S. Coast

Guard Permit, COE Section 10 and

404 Permits, Wilmington, Hanover

County, NC, Due: June 22, 1998,

Contact: Nicholas L. Graf (919) 856–

4346.

EIS No. 980184, Final EIS, SCS, NB, KS,

Turkey Creek Watershed Plan,

Watershed Protection and Flood

Protection, Johnson and Pawnee

Counties, NB and Marshall and

Nemaha Counties, KS, Due: June 22,

1998, Contact: Craig Derickson (402)

437–4112.

EIS No. 980185, Final EIS, BLM, CA,

NV, Rangeland Health Standards and

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing on

Public Rangelands in California and

Northwestern Nevada, CA and NV,

Due: June 22, 1998, Contact: James

Morrison (916) 978–4642.

EIS No. 980186, Draft EIS, UAF, ND,

Minuteman III Missile System

Dismantlement, Intercontinental

Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Launch

Facilities (LFs) and Missile Alert

Facilities (MAFs), Deployment Areas,

Grand Forks Air Force Base, ND, Due:

July 6, 1998, Contact: Jonathan D.

Farthing (210) 536–3069.

EIS No. 980187, Final EIS, AFS, AK,

Chasina Timber Sale, Harvesting

Timber and Road Construction,

Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger

District, Ketchikan Administrative

Area, AK, Due: June 22, 1998,

Contact: Norm Matson (907) 228–

6273.

EIS No. 980188, Final EIS, COE, NY,

Atlantic Coast of Long Island Jones

Inlet to East Rockaway Inlet Storm

Damage Reduction Project,

Construction, Long Beach Island,

Nassau County, NY, Due: June 22,

1998, Contact: Steven Sinkevich (212)

264–2198.

EIS No. 980189, Draft Supplement EIS,

HI Ma’aLaea Harbor Improvements for

Light-Draft-Vessels, Entrance Channel

Realignment and Breakwater

Modification, Additional Information,

Island of Maui, Maui County, HI, Due:

July 6, 1998, Contact: Benton Ching

(808) 438–1157.

Dated: May 19, 1998.

Anne Norton Miller,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98–13779 Filed 5–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5492–2]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared May 4, 1998 Through May 8,

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–B61023–NH

Rating EC2, Waterville Valley Ski

Resort Project, Development of

Snowmaking Water Impoundments

Project, Special-Use-Permits, Dredge

and Fill Permit and COE Section 404

Permit, White Mountain National

Forest, Pemigewasset Ranger District,

Town of Waterville Valley, Grafton

County, NH.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns and suggested

that the impact to water quality from

alternatives two and four be further

developed in the FEIS. EPA

recommended mitigation option two to

offset unavoidable wetland impacts

associated with the project.

ERP No. D–COE–K32050–CA

Rating EO2, Oakland Harbor Inner

and Outer Deep Navigation (–50 Foot)

Improvement Project, Implementation,

Feasibility Study, Port of Oakland,

Alameda and San Francisco Counties,

CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections due to

potential air quality impacts, especially

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)

associated with dredging, dredged

material transport/disposal and related

construction work. Despite these

significant NOx emissions, there is no

indication from the DEIS that NOx

mitigation measures proposed by the

Corps would suffice for purposes of

making a positive conformity finding.

EPA expressed serious concerns that the

EIS may have unnecessarily constrained

the range of reasonable action

alternatives by eliminating a detailed

analysis of dredge depths less than –50

feet. EPA asked the Corps to determine