15564 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Notices

labeling requirements for termiticide

and flammability. We estimate that

there will be approximately 300

respondents spending an average of 5

hours to meet these requirements.

The sixth component is the generic

burden associated with future policy

changes. Over the period of clearance

we expect to modify reporting

requirements to better serve the needs of

the applicants; we have provided 50,000

hours for this contingency.

Respondents: Respondents includes

applicants for: (1) pesticide registrations

for new never-before-registered

chemicals, (2) ‘‘reduced-risk’’ new

active ingredients, and (3) monitoring

and reporting on labeling activities.

Respondents also include trainers

(organizations and individuals) for

monitoring and reporting on the

Training Verification Program.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 38,000.

Estimated No. of Responses per

Respondent: 1.4.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 199,000 hours.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate, or any other aspect of the

information collection, including

suggestions for reducing the burden,

(please refer to EPA ICR #0277.10 and

OMB #2070–0060) to:

Sandy Farmer, EPA ICR #0277.10, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Information Policy Branch—2136, 401

M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460

and

Tim Hunt, OMB #2070–0060, Office of

Management and Budget, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

725 17th Street NW., Washington,

D.C. 20503.

Dated: March 20, 1995.

Paul Lapsley,

Director, Regulatory Management Division.

[FR Doc. 95–7354 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5177–4]

Agency Information Collection

Activities Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice

announces the Office of Management

and Budget’s (OMB) responses to

Agency PRA clearance requests.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandy Farmer (202) 260–2740, please

refer to the EPA ICR No.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency PRA

Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

EPA ICR No. 0820.06; Hazardous

Waste Generator Standards; was

approved 02/23/95; OMB No. 2050–

0035; expires 02/28/98.

EPA ICR No. 1487.05; Cooperative

Agreements and Superfund State

Contracts for Superfund Response

Actions; was approved 02/03/95; OMB

No. 2010–0020; expires 02/28/98.

EPA ICR No. 1391.03; Information

Request for State Revolving Fund

Program; was approved 02/24/95; OMB

No. 2040–0118; expires 02/28/98.

OMB Disapprovals

EPA ICR No. 1667.01; Public

Information and Confidentiality

Regulations; was disapproved 02/17/95.

EPA ICR No. 1693.01; Plant-Pesticides

Subject to the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; was

disapproved 01/24/95.

Dated: March 17, 1995.

Paul Lapsley,

Director, Regulatory Management Division.

[FR Doc. 95–7357 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

[ER-FRL–4721–5]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared February 20, 1995 Through

February 24, 1995 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) 260–5076.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in FR

dated April 10, 1995 (59 FR 16807).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–FHW–E40757–AL Rating

EC2, Eastern Pleasure Island Hurricane

Evacuation Route Construction, AL–182

in Orange Beach to CR–95 near CR–20

(on the mainland) and CR–95 near CR–

20 to I–10, Funding and US Coast Guard

Bridge and COE Section 404 Permits

Issuance, Baldwin County, AL.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that the

projects will impact between 66.7 and

75 acres of wetlands and that the

documents do not evaluate impacts to

terrestrial resources.

ERP No. D–FHW–G40140–TX Rating

EC2, Grand Parkway Segment (TX–99)

Improvements Project, from TX–225 to

I–10, Funding, COE Section 404 Permit

and Right-of-Way Grant, Harris and

Chambers Counties, TX.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about the

proposal and requested that the

additional information needed in the

final EIS primarily focus on project

alternatives, cumulative impacts, a

current air quality analysis, and

environmental justice.

ERP No. D–FHW–K53007–CA Rating

EC2, Alameda Railroad Corridor

Consolidated Project, Construction from

Downtown Los Angeles to the Badger

Avenue Bridge/CA–91, Funding, COE

Section 404 Permit and ICC Approval,

Los Angeles County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns primarily with

the draft EIS’s assessment of the

project’s potential air quality impacts

and the mitigation measures described

in the project documentation. EPA

commended the inclusion of a worstcase emergency response plan for

hazardous material incidents, and

pollution prevention features to reuse/

recycle waste material from existing rail

lines.

ERP No. DS–FTA–K51035–CA Rating

EC2, Bay Area Rapid Transit District

(BART) Transportation Improvements,

San Francisco to San Francisco

International Airport Extension,

Updated and Additional Information,

Approval, Funding, COE Section 404

and Possible FHWA Encroachment

Permits Issuance, San Mateo County,

CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns due to potential

impacts to wetlands, endangered

species, and groundwater that is a

drinking water source for area residents.

EPA asked that the final EIS provide

more information on issues associated

with the Clean Water Act Section 404

permit, including the least

environmentally damaging practicable

alternative; and potential groundwater

impacts from project construction and

operation including mitigation and

monitoring for adverse impacts.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–L65173–OR Buzzard

Project Area Timber Sale and Road

Construction, Implementation, Umatilla

National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger

District, Union and Wallowa Counties,

OR.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns based on
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Notices 15565

uncertain sediment output from the

proposed timber harvest and potential

effects on water quality and the lack of

a monitoring feedback loop.

ERP No. F–FHW–D40261–WV US 19/

Corridor L Improvements from Nicholas

County High School to I–79, Funding

and COE Section 404 Permit, Nicholas

and Braxton Counties, WV.

Summary: EPA believed that the

mitigative measures to offset

unavoidable impacts to aquatic and

terrestrial resources are insufficient and

that noise and visual impact mitigation

are not sufficiently described.

ERP No. F–USA–A11072–00 Theater

Missile Defense (TMD) Extended Test

Range, Demonstration and Operation,

Missile Flight Test, Implementation,

United States, Republic of the Marshall

Islands and Wake Island, Pacific.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that the final

EIS did not properly address

alternatives analysis, noise issues,

hazardous waste issues, and response to

federal and state comments.

Regulations

ERP No. R–DOA–A99201–00 7 CFR

Part 335, Plant Pests: Introduction of

Non-Indigenous Organisms—Proposed

Rule.

Summary: The proposed regulation

on the importation of non-indigenous

species does not indicate how the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) intends to deal with the

issue of the importation of genetically

altered species or with the issue of

overlapping authority between APHIS

and the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) with regard to the

importation of species used in pesticidal

activities. The proposed regulation also

does not clearly define the standards

which APHIS will apply when making

permitting decisions and does not

clearly define the information which

will be required in a permit application.

Dated: March 21, 1995.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–7359 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[ER–FRL–4721–4]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

260–5076 OR (202) 260–5075.

Weekly receipt of Environmental

Impact Statements Filed March 13, 1995

Through March 17, 1995 Pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 950091, FINAL EIS, BLM, CO,

Royal Gorge Resource Management

Plan, Implementation, Canon City

District, several counties, CO, Due:

April 26, 1995, Contact: Dave

Taliaferro (719) 539–7289.

EIS No. 950092, DRAFT EIS, FTA, PR,

Tren Urbano Transit Project,

Improvement, San Juan Metropolitan

Area, Funding, NPDES Permit, US

Coast Guard Bridge Permit and COE

Section 10 and 404 Permits, PR, Due:

May 08, 1995, Contact: Roger Krahl

(404) 347–7875.

EIS No. 950093, FINAL EIS, AFS, UT,

Gardner Canyon Gypsum Open Pit

Mine, Development and Operation,

Special Use Permit and Possible COE

Section 404 Permit, Mount Nebo

Wilderness Area, Uinta National

Forest, Juab County, UT, Due: April

24, 1995, Contact: Mark Sensibaugh

(801) 798–3571.

EIS No. 950094, DRAFT EIS, AFS, WA,

Thunder Mountain Fire Recovery and

Salvage Project, Implementation,

Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket

and Methow Valley Ranger Districts,

Okanogan County, UT, Due: May 08,

1995, Contact: Don Rose (509) 486–

5109.

EIS No. 950095, FINAL EIS, COE, CA,

Petaluma River Flood Control

Improvements, Implementation, City

of Petaluma, Sonoma County, CA,

Due: April 24, 1995, Contact: Gary

Flickinger (415) 744–3341.

EIS No. 950096, DRAFT EIS, EPA, CA,

Joint Water Pollution Control Plant

(JWPCP), Full Secondary Treatment

Upgrade Project, Construction and

Funding, City of Carson, Los Angeles

County, CA, Due: May 08, 1995,

Contact: Elizabeth Borowiec (415)

744–1948.

EIS No. 950097, FINAL EIS, UAF, PA,

Institute for Advanced Science and

Technology (IAST) Site Selection and

Construction, Funding, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, Due:

April 24, 1995, Contact: Terry

Armstrong (210) 536–3869.

EIS No. 950098, DRAFT SUPPLEMENT,

FTA, MA, Old Colony Railroad

Rehabilitation Project, Transit

Improvements, New and Updated

Information, concerning construction

of Greenbush Line Corridor, MA, Due:

May 22, 1995, Contact: Mary Beth

Mello (617) 494–2055.

EIS No. 950099, DRAFT SUPPLEMENT,

FHW, CA, Benicia-Martinez Bridge

Project, Transportation

Improvements, Updated Information,

I–680 from CA–4 in Martinez to I–80

in Fairfield, I–80 from Red Top Road

to CA–12 east in Fairfield, I–780 from

the I–680 Interchange in Benicia to

Lemon Street in Vallejo, Funding, US

Coast Guard Bridge Permit, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permits, Contra

Costa and Solano Counties, CA, Due:

May 12, 1995, Contact: John Schultz

(916) 498–5041.

EIS No. 950100, DRAFT SUPPLEMENT,

COE, IN, Little Calumet River

Multipurpose Project, Additional

Information, Flood Control and Flood

Protection, Lake and Porter Counties,

IN, Due: May 08, 1995, Contact: Philip

B. Moy (312) 886–0451.

Dated: March 21, 1995.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–7358 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[FRL–5178–3]

Clean Water Act Section 303(d):

Availability of List Submission and

Proposed Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of lists submitted to EPA by

California pursuant to Clean Water Act

section 303(d)(2) as well as EPA’s

proposed approval decision, and

requests public comment. Section

303(d)(2) requires that states submit and

EPA approve or disapprove lists of

waters for which existing technologybased pollution controls are not

stringent enough to attain or maintain

state water quality standards and for

which total maximum daily loads

(TMDLs) must be prepared. EPA is

providing this opportunity for the

public to review California’s lists

because California did not provide

adequate opportunities for public

participation in the development of the

lists, as required by Public Participation

regulations (40 CFR part 25). EPA will

consider public comments in reaching

its final decision on California’s lists.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to

EPA on or before May 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

decision should be sent to David Smith,

Watershed Protection Branch (W–3–2),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744–2012.

Copies of the California lists and report

explaining the rationale for EPA’s

proposed decision can be obtained by

writing or calling Mr. Smith at the above

address. Underlying documentation

comprising the record for this decision

is available for public inspection at the

above address.