30232 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Notices

for the Approval and Delegation of

Federal Air Toxics Programs to State

and Local Agencies, OMB No. 2060–

0264 (EPA ICR No. 1643.02). (The

current EPA ICR No. 1643.01 expires on

July 31, 1996). The ICR describes the

nature of the information collection and

its expected burden.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY

CALL: Sandy Farmer at EPA, (202) 260–

2740, and refer to EPA ICR No. 1643.02.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Affected entities: Entities potentially

affected by this action are State, local,

or tribal governments that voluntarily

participate. No industries are included

among the applicants.

Title: Extension for Application

Requirements for the Approval and

Delegation of Federal Air Toxics

Programs to State and Local Agencies,

OMB No. 2060–0264 (EPA ICR No.

1643.02).

Abstract: This collection is a

voluntary application from State, local,

or tribal governments that voluntarily

request delegation of Federal air toxics

programs or approval of State, local, or

tribal air toxics programs that meet the

objectives of the relevant Federal

programs. Affected entities have

requested such delegations and

approvals in order to gain approval of

their programs which they can

implement at lower costs, thus

providing them with a net decrease in

overall program expenditures. Because

the participation of the affected entities

is voluntary, EPA believes there will be

a net reduction in burden and costs to

the affected entities.

The procedures and requirements for

these delegations and approvals were

codified as Subpart E of 40 CFR 63 in

accordance with section 112(l)(2) of the

Clean Air Act (Act), as amended in

1990. The Act calls for EPA to ‘‘publish

guidance that would be useful to the

States in developing programs * * *

allowing for delegation of the

Administrator’s authorities and

responsibilities to implement and

enforce emissions standards and

prevention requirements.’’

The approval process includes

options that allow the affected entities

to adjust or substitute for a Federal rule

or program. The options vary in the

types of changes allowed and in the

level of demonstrations required for

approval. Affected entities interested in

utilizing this program are required to

submit an application package to the

reviewing agency.

All submissions are voluntary on the

part of the affected entities. Therefore,

the information collection requirements

apply only to those entities that

voluntarily submit applications. All

application packages are submitted to

the Administrator for approval. The

information is needed to determine if

the entity submitting a request has met

the criteria established in the 40 CFR

Part 63, Subpart E rule. The collection

of information is authorized under 42

U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Information

obtained by EPA is safeguarded

according to the Agency policies set

forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2,

Subpart B, Confidentiality of Business

Information. See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,

September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR

39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251,

September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674,

March 23, 1979.

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

22, 1996 (61 FR 11832–11833). There

were no comments in response to the

notice.

Burden Statement: The Agency has

estimated the annual public reporting

and recordkeeping burden for this

voluntary collection of information to

average less than 2000 hours per

affected entity, using reasonable upper

bound estimates. ‘‘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,

including the time 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.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

42.

Estimated Frequency: 3 times over a

3-year period.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

80,000 hours.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the following addresses:

Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division (2137), 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20503;

and Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Attention:

Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. Please

refer to EPA ICR No. 1643.02 and OMB

Control No. 2060–0264 in any

correspondence.

Dated: June 10, 1996.

Joseph Retzer,

Director, Regulatory Information Division,

Integration Division.

[FR Doc. 96–15189 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[ER–FRL–5470–4]

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 June 3, 1996

through June 7, 1996 pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 960262, DRAFT EIS, NPS, WA,

Klondike Gold Rush National

Historical Park, General Management

Plan (GMP), Implementation,

Skagway, Alaska and Seattle, WA,

Due: July 31, 1996, Contact: Willie

Russell (206) 553–7220.

EIS No. 960263, FINAL EIS, FHW, AL,

Southern Bypass and Weatherly Road

Extension Project, Hobbs Island Road

to I–565 Interchange, Funding and

COE Section 404 Permit, City of

Huntsville, Madison County, AL, Due:

July 15, 1996, Contact: Joe D.

Wilkerson (334) 223–7370.

EIS No. 960264, DRAFT EIS, COE, FL,

Brevard County Shore Protection

Study, Implementation, Beach

Restoration Project, Brevard County,

FL, Due: July 29, 1996, Contact:

Michael Dupes (904) 232–1689.

EIS No. 960265, FINAL EIS, FHW, MO,

US 61 Relocation, US 61/24

Interchange north of Hannibal to the

vicinity of US 61/M Intersection south

of Hannibal, Funding and Possible

COE Section 404 Permit, Marion and

Ralls Counties, MO, Due: July 15,

1996, Contact: Don Neumann (314)

636–7104.

EIS No. 960266, DRAFT EIS, SFW, SC,

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge

Establishment, Preserve and Protect
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Notices 30233

the Diverse Habitat Components and

Coastal River Ecosystem, Great Pee

Dee and Waccamaw Rivers,

Georgetown, Horry and Marion

Counties, SC, Due: July 31, 1996,

Contact: Charles R. Danner (800) 419–

9582.

EIS No. 960267, DRAFT EIS, NPS, NH,

Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site,

General Management Plan and

Development Concept Plan,

Implementation, Sullivan County,

NH, Due: July 29, 1996, Contact: John

Reber (303) 969–2418.

EIS No. 960268, DRAFT EIS, USN, FL,

VA, USS SEAWOLF Submarine

Shock Testing, Implementation,

located Offshore Mayport, FL or

Norfolk, VA, Due: July 29, 1996,

Contact: Will Sloger (803) 820–5797.

EIS No. 960269, FINAL EIS, FTA, CA,

San Francisco International Airport

Extension, Transportation

Improvements, Bay Area Rapid

Transit District (BART) Funding, San

Mateo County, CA, Due: July 15, 1996,

Contact: Robert Hom (415) 744–3116.

EIS No. 960270, DRAFT EIS, TVA, TN,

Kingston Fossil Plant Alternative Coal

Receiving Systems, New Rail Spur

Construction near the Cities of

Kingston and Harriman, Roane

County, TN, Due: July 8, 1996,

Contact: David W. Robinson (423)

751–2502.

The above EIS should have appeared

in the May 24, 1996 Federal Register.

The 45 day Comment Period is

Calculated from the Intended Federal

Register Date of May 24, 1996.

Dated: June 11, 1996.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 96–15203 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[ER–FRL–5470–5]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared May 28, 1996 through May 31,

1996 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 5, 1996 (61 FR 15251).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–K61141–CA Rating

EC2, Snowcreek Golf Course Expansion,

Construction and Operation, Special

Use Permit, Inyo National Forest System

Lands, Mono County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the

separate environmental evaluation of

the related Snowcreek ski area and

Snowcreek golf course projects, the

need for the golf course, water quality

and quantity, and potential impacts to

wildlife habitat. The final EIS should

develop mitigation measures for

potential cumulative impacts.

ERP No. D–AFS–K65181–CA Rating

EC2, Sequoia National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan,

Amendment ‘‘Grazing Management’’,

Implementation, Kern, Tulare and

Fresno Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the

preferred alternative. It does not address

forage utilization or an all season

monitoring plan which allows for

adaptive management.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65261–AK Rating

EC2, Port Houghton/Cape Fanshaw

Timber Harvest Sale Project,

Implementation, Tongass National

Forest, Chatham and Stikine Areas,

South of Juneau, AK.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

project impacts on water quality and the

marine environment.

ERP No. D–BLM–K67034–NV Rating

EO2, Talapoosa Gold Mine Project,

Construction and Operation, Plan of

Operations Approval, Special-UsePermit and COE Section 404 Permit

Issuance, Silver Springs, Lyon County,

NV.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections due to

potential groundwater and post-mining

pit lake impacts. EPA requested

additional information on groundwater

modeling, pit water quality, ecological

risk assessment, geochemical

characterization and waste rock

disposal, seepage rates from waste rock

dumps, facilities design and

reclamation, and mitigation measures.

ERP No. D–DOE–L09807–WA Rating

EC2, Hanford Site K Basins Management

of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Storage and

Disposal, Application for Approval of

Construction and NPDES Permit

Issuance, Columbia River, Richland,

Benton County, WA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

permitting, accidential releases, and

economic analysis.

ERP No. D–OSM–E67003–TN Rating

EC2, Fern Lake Petition Area for Surface

Coal Mining Operations, Designation or

Undesignation as Unsuitable for Coal

Mining Operations, Claiborne County,

TN.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over surface

mining in the Fern Lake watershed

because of potential adverse impacts to

water quality, aquatic life and the water

supply for the City of Middlesboro.

ERP No. DS–NPS–K61126–AZ Rating

LO, Tumacacori National Historical

Park General Management Plan,

Additional Information, Santa Cruz

County, AZ.

Summary: EPA expressed a lack of

objections with the new preferred

alternative.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–K67031–NV. Dash

Open Pit and Underground Mining

Project, Implementation, Expanding

existing Gold Mining Operations at the

Jerritt Canyon Project, Plan of Operation

Approval and COE Section 404 Permit,

Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest,

Independence Mountain Range, Elko

County, NV.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

potential water quality impacts and

recommended that the Forest Service

conduct modeling to predict the

concentrations and effects of

contaminants in streams. EPA also

expressed concern regarding the

placement of waste rock in waters of the

United States and the need for

additional information on mitigation

measures for this activity.

ERP No. F–BLM–K67020–AZ. Cyprus

Bagdad Copper Mine, Mill Tailings and

Waste Rock Storage Expansion, Plan of

Operation Approval, NPDES and COE

Section 404 Permits Issuance, Yavapai

County, AZ.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections about the

project as proposed. EPA recommended

that quantitative modeling of the postproject quality of pit water be conducted

prior to BLM’s Record of Decision.

Mitigation of and monitoring for

impacts to waters of the U.S. should

have been addressed in the EIS and EPA

suggests that the mitigation and

monitoring plan be discussed in the

Record of Decision.

ERP No. F–BLM–K67032–NV. Round

Mountain Mine Mill and Tailings

Facility, Construction and Operation for

the Smoke Valley Operation, Plan of

Operations Amendment Approval, Nye

County, NV.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections regarding

cumulative impacts of the proposed

project effectiveness of mitigation