2388 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices

75-foot-high concrete dam comprised of

an overflow spillway section

surmounted with 4-foot-high

flashboards; (2) the 6-mile-long, 1,050-

acre Goat Rock reservoir at a normal

pool elevation of 404 feet msl; (3) a

powerhouse, integral with the dam,

containing six generating units with a

total installed capacity of 26,000 kW,

and (4) other appurtenances.

The Oliver Development consists of

the following existing facilities: (1) A

70-foot-high concrete dam comprised of

a gated spillway section; (2) the 8.5-

mile-long, 2,150-acre Lake Oliver

reservoir at a normal pool elevation of

337 feet msl; (3) a powerhouse, integral

with the dam, containing four

generating units with a total installed

capacity of 60,000 kW, and (4) other

appurtenances.

The North Highlands Development

consists of the following existing

facilities: (1) a 40-foot-high concrete

masonry dam comprised of an overflow

spillway section surmounted with 3.5-

foot-high flashboards; (2) the 131-acre

North Highlands reservoir at a normal

pool elevation of 269 feet msl; (3) a

powerhouse, integral with the dam,

containing four generating units with a

total installed capacity of 29,600 kW,

and (4) other appurtenances.

m. Each application for a new license

and any competing license applications

must be filed with the Commission at

least 24 months prior to the expiration

of the existing license. All applications

for license for this project must be filed

by December 31, 2002.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–927 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6523–2]

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request; Part B

Permit Application, Permit

Modifications, and Special Permits

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: Part B Permit Application,

Permit Modifications, and Special

Permits, OMB No. 2050–0009, expires

on March 31, 2000. The ICR describes

the nature of the information collection

and its expected burden and cost; where

appropriate, it includes the actual data

collection instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before February 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer

at EPA by phone at (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. 1573.06. For technical questions

about the ICR contact David Eberly at

(703) 308–8645.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Part B Permit Application,

Permit Modifications, and Special

Permits, OMB Control No. 2050–0009,

EPA ICR No. 1573.06, expiring on

March 31, 2000. This is a request for

extension of a currently approved

collection.

Abstract: Section 3005 of Subtitle C of

RCRA requires treatment, storage or

disposal (TSD) facilities to obtain a

permit. To obtain the permit, the TSD

must submit an application describing

the facility’s operation. There are two

parts to the RCRA permit application—

part A and part B. Part A defines the

processes to be used for treatment,

storage, and disposal of hazardous

wastes; the design capacity of such

processes; and the specific hazardous

wastes to be handled at the facility. Part

B requires detailed site specific

information such as geologic,

hydrologic, and engineering data. In the

event that permit modifications are

proposed by the applicant or EPA,

modifications must conform to the

requirements under sections 3004 and

3005.

This ICR provides a comprehensive

discussion of the requirements for

owner/operators of TSDFs submitting

applications for a part B permit or

permit modification. The information

collections contained in this ICR are

divided into three sections:

demonstrations and exemptions from

requirements (40 CFR part 264),

contents of the part B application (40

CFR part 270), and permit modifications

and special permits (40 CFR part 270).

EPA needs the information for

demonstrations and exemptions from

requirements to evaluate the accuracy

and completeness of petitions for

exemptions submitted by owner/

operators. These requirements insure

that only facilities fully protective of

human health and the environment are

granted exemptions, and contribute to

EPA’s goal of preventing contamination

of the environment from hazardous

waste treatment, storage, and disposal

practices.

EPA needs the information for

contents of the part B Application to

evaluate the accuracy and completeness

of the claims made in the petitions for

exemptions submitted by owner/

operators. These requirements

contribute to EPA’s goal of ensuring that

hazardous waste management facilities

are closed in a manner fully protective

of human health and the environment.

EPA needs the information for Permit

Application to comprehensively

evaluate the potential risk posed by

facilities seeking permits. This

information aids EPA in meeting its goal

of ascertaining and minimizing risks to

human health and the environment

from hazardous waste management

facilities.

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 July

23, 1999 (64 FR 39986); no comments

were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public

reporting and record keeping burden for

this collection of information is

estimated to average 307 hours per

response. 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:

Owners/operators of facilities that treat,

store or disposes of regulated wastes.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

579.

Frequency of Response: occasional.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

177,543 hours.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2000 / Notices 2389

Estimated Total Annualized Capital,

Operating/Maintenance Cost Burden:

$48,341,000.

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 1CR No. 1573.06 and

OMB Control No. 2050–0009 in any

correspondence.

Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of

Environmental Information,

Collection Strategies Division (2822),

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

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: January 5, 2000.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 00–961 Filed 1–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6249–9]

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

www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa. An explanation

of the ratings assigned to draft

environmental impact statements (EISs)

was published in FR dated April 09,

1999 (64 FR 17362).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–NPS–J61102–00, EIS No.

990340, Winter Use Plan, Yellowstone

and Grand Teton National Parks and

John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial

Parkway, Implementation, Fremont

County, ID; Gallatin and Park Counties,

MT; and Park and Teton Counties, WY.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections with the

preferred alternative because of adverse

impacts from off-highway vehicle

emissions likely to result in

noncompliance with air quality

standards. EPA recommends that the

selected alternative assure compliance

with air quality standards. Rating EO2.

ERP No. D–COE–K36129–CA, EIS No.

990367, San Timoteo Creek Reach 3B

Flood Control Project, Flood Protection,

Construction, Operation and

Maintenance, San Bernardino County,

CA.

Summary: EPA expressed objections

to the preferred project alternative based

on significant impacts to waters of the

US, including wetlands, and deficient

analyses of impacts and mitigation

measures related to waters and

biological resources. EPA also

determined that the DEIS’s Preferred

Alternative is not consistent with the

Section 404 (B)(1) guidelines of the

CWA. EPA recommended modification

of the alternatives in the FEIS. Rating

EO2.

ERP No. D–IBR–H39007–00, EIS No.

990375, Republican River Basin LongTerm Water Supply Contract Renewals

for Five Irrigation Districts, FrenchmanCambridge, Frenchman Valley and

Bostwick Irrigation District in Nebraska

and Bostwick No. 2 and Almena

Irrigation Districts in Kansas, NB and

KS.

Summary: EPA raised significant

issues regarding depletions of water

resources, species extripation, pending

water quality standards, and competing

water interests. Rating EC2.

ERP No. D–UAF–E11046–FL, EIS No.

990390, Tyndall Air Force Base,

Implementation, Proposed Conversion

of Two F–15 Fight Squadrons to F–22

Fighter Squadron, FL.

Summary: The conversion of two

fighter squadrons of F–15 to F–22

aircraft at Tyndall AFB does not appear

to pose significant and/or long-term

adverse environmental consequences.

Rating LO.

ERP No. D–AFS–G65074–TX, EIS No.

990395, Texas Blowdown Reforestation

Project, Implementation, National

Forests and Grasslands in Texas,

Angeline and Sabine National Forests,

San Augustine and Shelby Counties,

TX.

Summary: EPA has no objection to the

preferred action as described in the

Draft EIS. Rating LO.

ERP No. D–HUD–K80040–CA, EIS No.

990403, City of Monterey Park Project,

Construction and Operation of the

Monterey Park Towne Plaza, North of

the Pomona Freeway and west

Paramount Boulevard, Los Angeles

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed support for

the proposed project to the extent that

it is consistent with and does not in any

way hinder EPA’s ongoing and long

term Superfund response actions at the

Operating Industries Inc. (Oil)

Superfund Site. Rating LO.

ERP No. D–DOE–K22004–CA, EIS No.

990410, National Ignition Facility

Project Specific Analysis, Construction

and Operation at the Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory,

Livermore, CA

Summary: EPA expressed concern

regarding clean-up levels for PCBs and

the relationships among various cleanup plans and requirements under

CERCLA. EPA requested clarification of

these issues and that additional

information on the economic impacts be

included in the final EIS. Rating EC2.

ERP No. D–FHW–K40240–CA, EIS

No. 990411, CA–70 Upgrade in Sutter

and Yuba Counties, To a Four-Lane

Expressway/Freeway, From South of

Striplin Road to South of McGowan

Road Overcrossing, Funding and COE

Section 404 Permit, Sutter and Yuba

Counties, CA

Summary: EPA objections to

Alternative 1 since it does not appear to

be the least environmentally damaging

practicable alternative pursuant to Clean

Water Act section 404(b)(1) guidelines.

EPA also expressed concerns regarding

Alternatives 2 and 3 due to impacts to

water and air quality, wetlands

mitigation, and project air conformity.

Rating EO2.

ERP No. D–TVA–E70001–TN, EIS No.

990420, Tim Ford Reservoir Land

Management and Disposition Plan,

Implementation, Tim Ford Reservoir,

Franklin and Moore Counties, TN.

Summary: EPA raised environmental

concerns with the proposal based on its

features that allow for more

development of undeveloped lands than

currently exists. Rating EC1.

ERP No. D–FTA–K54023–CA, EIS No.

990433, Vasona Corridor Light Rail

Transit Project, Extension of Existing

Light Rail Transit (LRT) in portion of

the Cities of San Jose, Campbell and Los

Gatos, Santa Clara County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed a lack of

objections to the project proposal but

did suggest that the cumulative impacts

section be expanded; that the project

proponent work with EPA in developing

the final wetlands mitigation plan; and

that the project use recycled products in

keeping with RCRA requirements.

Rating LO.

ERP No. DS–UAF–A11074–00, EIS

No. 990422, Evolved Expendable

Launch Vehicle Program, Updated

Information, To Allow the Addition of

Up to Five Strap-On Solid Rocket

Motors (SRM) to the Atlas V and Delta

IV Lift Vehicle, Launch Locations are

Cape Canaveral Air Station, Brevard

County, FL and Vandenberg Air Force

Base (AFB), Santa Barbara County, CA