Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34439

instruments, call the SAMHSA Reports

Clearance Officer on (301) 443–0525.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

or other forms of information

technology.

Proposed Project: Evaluation of Model

Programs Targeting Substance Abusing

Pregnant and Postpartum Women and

their Infants —Revision—Data are

collected from clients, comparison

group women, and staff on interventions

received and maternal and child

outcomes as part of an evaluation of

model projects serving substance

abusing pregnant and postpartum

women and their infants. The model

projects are funded by the Center for

Substance Abuse Prevention, SAMHSA.

This evaluation will assist CSAP in

accomplishing national health

objectives related to maternal and child

health, especially those directly related

to maternal substance abuse and its

potential effects on birth outcomes and

child development. In this proposed

revision of an ongoing study, the data

collection instruments remain

unchanged. Sample sizes are somewhat

smaller than originally anticipated

resulting in a reduced annual burden.

The estimated revised burden is shown

below.

Number

of respondents

Responses

per respondent

Hours per

response

Total burden

hours

823 5.48 0.24 1082

Send comments to Deborah Trunzo,

SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer,

Room 16–105, Parklawn Building, 5600

Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

Written comments should be received

within 60 days of this notice.

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Richard Kopanda

Executive Officer, Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–16831 Filed 7–01–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4162–20–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4100–N–01]

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Housing—Federal Housing

Commissioner; Notice of Proposed

Information Collection for Public

Comment

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The proposed information

collection requirement described below

will be submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act. The Department is

soliciting public comments on the

subject proposal.

DATES: Comments due: September 3,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this proposal. Comments should refer to

the proposal by name and/or OMB

Control Number and should be sent to:

Oliver Walker, Housing, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, 451–

7th Street SW., Room 9116, Washington,

DC 20410.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ann M. Sudduth, Telephone number

(202) 708–0740 (this is not a toll-free

number) for copies of the proposed

forms and other available documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department will submit the proposed

information collection to OMB for

review, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35, as amended).

The Notice is soliciting comments

from members of the public and

affecting agencies concerning the

proposed collection of information to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility; (2) Evaluate the

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection of

information; (3) Enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to

be collected; and (4) Minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on those who are to respond; including

through the use of appropriate

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

This Notice also lists the following

information:

Title of Proposal: Request for

Occupied Conveyance.

OMB Control Number: 2502–0268.

Description of the need for the

information and the proposed use:

Information collected by this form

provides information HUD needs to

determine if the occupant is financially

able to pay the fair market rent and/or

whether a member of the immediate

family residing in the residence suffers

from a temporary, permanent or longterm illness or injury which would be

aggravated by the process of moving.

HUD field office personnel use this

information to base its determination as

whether to approve or deny occupied

conveyance.

Agency form numbers: HUD–9539.

Members of affected public:

Individuals or households.

An estimation of the total numbers of

hours needed to prepare the information

collection is 17,387.50, number of

respondents is 11,025, frequency

response is one-time, and the hours of

response is 4,012.50.

Status of the proposed information

collection: Extension of a currently

approved collection.

Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35,

as amended.

Dated: June 21, 1996.

Nicolas P. Retsinas,

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal

Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 96–16789 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–27–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

National Environmental Policy Act:

Implementing Procedures (516 DM 6,

Appendix 9)

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a proposed addition to

the Department of the Interior’s

Categorical Exclusions for the Bureau of

Reclamation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a

proposed addition to the categorical

exclusions included in Departmental

Manual 516 DM 6, appendix 9, that lists

actions excluded from the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) procedures for the Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation). The

proposed categorical exclusion pertains

to transfer of title to single-purpose

facilities within Reclamation projects to

non-Federal entities.
34440 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

DATES: Comments are due August 1,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Dr.

Darrell Cauley, Manager, Environmental

and Planning Coordination Office,

Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box 25007,

Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO

80225–0007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Willie R. Taylor, Director, Office of

Environmental Policy and Compliance;

telephone (202) 208–3891. For

Reclamation, Dr. Darrell Cauley,

Manager, Environmental Planning and

Coordination Office, telephone (303)–

236–9336 extension 222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Reclamation program was founded in

1902. Its original mission was one of

civil works construction to develop the

water resources of the arid Western

United States to promote the settlement

and economic development of that

region. The results of that work are well

known in the hundreds of projects that

were developed to store and deliver

water. That substantial infrastructure

made Reclamation the largest wholesale

supplier of water in the United States,

the sixth largest electric power

generator, and the manager of 45

percent of the surface water in the

Western United States. Many of these

projects were constructed at a time

when there were no local communities

and utilities. Today much of the West is

settled and is, in some respects, the

most urbanized region of the country.

Reclamation owns and operates public

utility facilities which, if located in

other parts of the country, would likely

be owned, operated, and funded by

publicly regulated private corporations

or local government agencies.

Reclamation’s policy for decades has

been to transfer operation and

maintenance of projects to local entities

where and when appropriate, while

retaining title to the project facilities in

Federal ownership.

As part of the second phase of the

National Performance Review (REGO II),

Reclamation is undertaking a program to

transfer title of facilities that could be

efficiently and effectively managed by

non-Federal entities and that are not

identified as having national

importance. This effort is a recognition

of Reclamation’s commitment to a

Federal Government that works better

and costs less. The transfer of title will

divest Reclamation of the responsibility

for the operation, maintenance,

management, regulation of, and liability

for the project. The transfer of title to

single-purpose facilities within a project

will, in effect, sever Reclamation’s ties

with that facility. Reclamation

recognizes that the complete severance

of the relationship between Reclamation

and the transferee may not be possible

in all instances.

NEPA requires that when a major

Federal action may have significant

impacts on the quality of the human

environment, a statement be prepared

[section 102(2)(C)] detailing the impacts

and effects to the human environment

associated with the Federal action.

When it is known in advance that a

certain category of actions will not have

a significant effect on the human

environment, that category of actions

may be excluded from further NEPA

requirement (40 CFR 1508.4).

Introduction to Proposal

It is the intent of Reclamation to

transfer title and responsibility for

certain single-purpose facilities within

projects, when and where appropriate,

to entities who are currently operating

and maintaining the facilities or

managing the lands. The Department of

the Interior (Department) proposes an

additional categorical subparagraph

9.4.A(4) in appendix 9 in the

Department Manual (516 DM 6). The

excluded title transfer action would

apply to a relatively small number of

single-purpose facilities within projects

where the transferees agree to make no

significant changes in operations and

maintenance, and/or land or water use

after transfer. The proposed exclusion in

a category of actions that does not

individually or cumulatively have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. If any of the

proposed title transfers involve any of

the following, an environmental

assessment (EA) and/or environmental

impact statement (EIS) will be prepared

in accordance with Reclamation’s NEPA

Handbook.

1. If the title transfer action involves

any of the Departmental exceptions to

the categorical exclusions listed in

Departmental Manual 516 DM 2,

Appendix 2.

2. If the title transfer action would

result in significant changes in the

operation and maintenance of the

facilities or lands transferred, or land

and water use in the foreseeable future.

3. If the title transfer action involves

any controversy or unresolved issue

associated with: protection of interstate

compacts and agreements; meeting the

Secretary of the Interior’s (Secretary)

Native American trust responsibilities;

fulfilling treaty and international

agreement obligations; or protection of

the public aspects of the project.

4. Other criteria as determined by

Reclamation to warrant an EA or EIS.

Appendix 8 must be interpreted in

conjunction with the Department’s

NEPA procedures (516 DM 1–6) and the

Council on Environmental Quality

regulations implementing the

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR

parts 1500–1508). The Department’s

procedures were published in the

Federal Register, 45 FR 27541, Apr. 23,

1980, and revised in 49 FR 21437, May

21, 1984.

Proposed Categorical Exclusion A. (4)

Transfer of title to single-purpose facilities

within Reclamation projects, to entities who

are currently operating and maintaining the

facilities or managing the lands, and who

would agree to make no significant changes

in operation and maintenance, and/or land

and water use within the foreseeable future.

Eligibility for this categorical

exclusion would be determined by

Reclamation based on results of on-site

inspections, surveys, and other methods

of evaluation and documentation

prepared by Reclamation to determine

the presence or absence of the

exceptions. A public involvement

process will be utilized as part of the

title transfer process. Details of this

determination process would be added

to Reclamation’s NEPA Handbook.

Projects that do not fully meet any of

these exceptions would not qualify for

this categorical exclusion.

Discussion of Exceptions

A title transfer action involving one of

the Departmental exceptions to

categorical exclusions will require the

preparation of an environmental

assessment. Briefly, the list of

exceptions contains criteria including

adverse effects on public health or

safety, parks, recreation or refuge lands,

wilderness areas, ecologically sensitive

areas, wild and scenic rivers, wetlands,

floodplains, properties listed or eligible

for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places, and species listed or

proposed to be listed on the List of

Endangered or Threatened Species, or

on designated Critical Habitats for these

species, cultural resources, and Indian

Trust Assets. Also, included in the

Departmental exceptions to categorical

exclusions are concerns related to

environmental controversy, uncertainty,

individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant environmental

effects, precedent setting decisions

about future actions, and compliance

with Federal, State, Tribal or local

environmental laws, executive orders,

and requirements. The complete list of

Departmental exceptions will be

referred to when applying the

categorical exclusion.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34441

Reclamation’s general exceptions

from the categorical exclusion include

title transfer action that incorporates

problems or activities which will

require the preparation of an

environmental assessment. Singlepurpose facilities within projects which

would be ineligible for the categorical

exclusion are those involving the

following:

1. Unresolved issues involving the

future operation and maintenance of the

transferred facilities and lands. Potential

transferees must be able to demonstrate

the technical capability to maintain and

operate the facilities and lands on a

permanent basis and an ability to meet

financial obligations associated with the

transferred assets. Operations and

maintenance of the facilities must not

change in the foreseeable future.

2. Unresolved issues involving future

use of lands or water associated with the

transferred facilities and lands. Potential

transferees must agree not to change the

use of the lands or water associated with

the transferred facilities for the

foreseeable future.

3. Unresolved issues involving

protection of interstate compacts and

agreements. All transfers must be

willing to assume responsibilities for

commitments made under existing

interstate compacts and agreements.

4. Unresolved issues involving

meeting the Secretary’s Native

American trust responsibilities. All

transfers must ensure the United States’

Native American trust responsibilities

are satisfied. In addition, outstanding

Native American claims that are directly

pending before the Department and that

would be directly affected by the

proposed transfer will be resolved prior

to transfer.

5. Unresolved issues involving

fulfilling treaty and international

agreement obligations.

6. Unresolved issues involving

protection of the public aspects of the

project or facilities. Potentially affected

State, local, and Tribal Governments,

appropriate Federal agencies, and the

public will be notified of the initiation

of discussions to transfer title and will

have (1) the opportunity to voice their

views and suggest options for

remedying any problems, and (2) full

access to relevant information,

including proposals, analyses, and

reports related to the proposed transfer.

The title transfer process will be carried

out in an open and public manner. Once

Reclamation has negotiated an

agreement with a transferee,

Reclamation will seek legislation

specifically authorizing the negotiated

terms of the transfer of each facility.

To be considered, any comments on

this proposed addition to the list of

categorical exclusions in the

Departmental Manual must be received

by August 1, 1996, at the location listed

under ADDRESSES above. Comments

received after that date will be

considered only to the extent

practicable.

Outline: Chapter 6 (516 DM 6)

Managing the NEPA Process, Appendix

9—Bureau of Reclamation, 9.4

Categorical Exclusions.

Dated: June 25, 1996.

Kenneth D. Naser,

Acting Director, Office of Environmental

Policy and Compliance.

516 DM 6, Appendix 9—Bureau of

Reclamation, 9.4 Categorical Exclusions

* * * * *

A. * * *

4. Transfer of title to single-purpose

facilities within Reclamation projects to

entities who are currently operating and

maintaining the facilities or managing

the lands, and who would agree to make

no significant changes in operation and

maintenance, and/or land and water use

within the foreseeable future.

[FR Doc. 96–16654 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–94–M

Fish and Wildlife Service

Notice of Availability of a Draft

Recovery Plan for the Kootenai River

Population of White Sturgeon in Idaho

and Montana for Review and Comment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces the

availability for public review of a draft

recovery plan for the Kootenai River

population of white sturgeon. The

Kootenai River white sturgeon

represents a land-locked population

found in the Kootenai River from

Kootenai Falls, Montana, downstream

through Kootenay Lake to Corra Linn

Dam on the lower West Arm of

Kootenay Lake, British Columbia. The

Service solicits review and comment

from the public on this draft plan.

DATES: Comments on the draft recovery

plan must be received on or before

September 30, 1996, to receive

consideration by the Service.

ADDRESSES: The draft recovery plan is

available for public inspection by

appointment during normal business

hours at either the Service’s Upper

Columbia River Basin Office, 11103 East

Montgomery Drive, Suite #2, Spokane,

Washington, 99206 or the Snake River

Basin Office, 4696 Overland Road,

Room 576, Boise, Idaho, 83705. Persons

wishing to review the draft recovery

plan may obtain a copy by contacting

the Supervisor, Snake River Basin

Office, at the above address or by calling

(208) 334–1931. Written comments and

materials regarding the plan should be

sent to the Service’s, Snake River Basin

Office, attention Recovery Team Leader,

at the above Boise address. Comments

and materials received are available on

request for public inspection by

appointment at the Snake River Basin

Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Ruesink or Steve Duke, at the

Service’s, Snake River Basin Office,

4696 Overland Road, Room 576, Boise,

Idaho 83705. (208) 334–1931.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Restoring an endangered or

threatened animal or plant to the point

where it is again a secure, selfsustaining member of its ecosystem is a

primary goal of the Service’s

endangered species program. Recovery

plans describe actions considered

necessary for conservation of the

species, establish criteria for the

recovery levels for downlisting and

delisting species, and estimate time and

cost for implementing the recovery

measures needed.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973

(Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.) requires the development of

recovery plans for listed species unless

such a plan would not promote the

conservation of a particular species.

Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in

1988, requires that public notice and an

opportunity for public review and

comment be provided during recovery

plan development. The Service will

consider all information presented

during a public comment period prior to

approval of each new or revised

recovery plan. The Service and other

Federal agencies will also take these

comments into account in the course of

implementing approved recovery plans.

The Kootenai River white sturgeon

became isolated from other white

sturgeon in the Columbia River basin

during the last glacial age

(approximately 10,000 years ago). Since

then, the population has adapted to the

pre-development habitat conditions in

the Kootenai River drainage.

Historically, spring runoff peaked

during the first half of June in the

Kootenai River upstream of the existing

Libby Dam in Montana. Runoff from