58910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION—Continued

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

See additional notes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 

Additional notes: 

1. Should conform with relevant OSHA requirements, including 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L, §§ 1910.160, 1910.161 (dry chemicals and 

aerosols) and 1910.162 (gaseous agents). 

2. Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) should be available in the event personnel should reenter the area. 

3. Discharge testing should be strictly limited to that which is essential to meet safety or performance requirements. 

4. The agent should be recovered from the fire protection system in conjunction with testing or servicing, and recycled for later use or destroyed. 

5. EPA has no intention of duplicating or displacing OSHA coverage related to the use of personal protective equipment (e.g., respiratory protection), fire protection, hazard communication, worker training or any other occupational safety and health standard with respect to halon 

substitutes. 

STERILANTS

End-use Substitute Decision Further information 

Sterilants .................................................. IoGasTM Sterilant Blends 1, 3, and 6 as 

substitutes for CFC–12, HCFC–22, 

HCFC–124, in sterilant blends with 

ethylene oxide.

Acceptable ........

Note: This appendix will not appear in the 

Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix B: New Information 

Available

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND EXPLOSION PROTECTION

End-use Substitute Information available 

Total flooding ................................... C6-perfluoroketone (FK–5–1–

12mmy2, CAS Reg. No. 756–

13–8).

EPA reviewed three additional papers on C6-perfluoroketone photolysis. The new information recently made available in the literature supports revising the global warming potential of C6-

perfluoroketone to be between 0.6 and 1.8, relative to CO2 on a 

100-year time horizon. See Docket A–91–42, item IX–B–93 or edocket OAR–2003–0118–0049. 

Streaming ........................................ C6-perfluoroketone (FK–5–1–

12mmy2, CAS Reg. No. 756–

13–8).

EPA reviewed three additional papers on C6-perfluoroketone photolysis. The new information recently made available in the literature supports revising the global warming potential of C6-

perfluoroketone to be between 0.6 and 1.8, relative to CO2 on a 

100-year time horizon. 

See Docket A–91–42, item IX–B–93 or e-docket OAR–2003–0118–

0049. 

[FR Doc. 04–21928 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–6656–3] 

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 

(202) 564–7167. An explanation of the 

ratings assigned to draft environmental 

impact statements (EISs) was published 

in the Federal Register dated April 2, 

2004 (69 FR 17403). 

Draft EISs 

ERP No. D–SFW–L64050–00 Rating 

EC2, Caspian Tern (sterna caspia) 

Management to Reduce Predation of 

Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia 

River Estuary, To Comply with the 2002 

Settlement Agreement, Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), Columbia River, WA, 

OR, ID, and CA.

Summary: EPA raised concerns about 

tern consumption of ESA-listed 

salmonids in the vicinity of proposed 

nesting sites, the need for alternative 

nesting sites and water quality impacts 

from the creation, enhancement and 

maintenance of tern nesting habitat.

ERP No. DB–NOA–E91007–00 Rating 

LO, South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery 

Management Plan, Amendment 6, 

Propose to Amend the Bycatch 

Reduction Device (BRD) Testing 

Protocol System, South Atlantic Region. 

Summary: While EPA has no 

objection to the preferred alternatives, 

EPA requested clarification on why 

some alternatives only apply to either 

penaeid or rock shrimp, rather than to 

both. 

Final EISs 

ERP No. F–AFS–G65085–NM, 

Sacramento, Dry Canyon and Davis 

Grazing Allotments, Authorization of 

Livestock Grazing Activities, Lincoln 

National Forest, Sacramento Ranger 

District, Otero County, NM.

Summary: The Final EIS adequately 

responded to EPA’s comments on the 

Draft EIS. EPA has no objection to the 

preferred action.

ERP No. F–COE–E39063–AL, 

Choctaw Point Terminal Project, 

Construction and Operation of a 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58911

Container Handling Facility, 

Department of the Army (DA) Permit 

Issuance, Mobile County, AL. 

Summary: EPA continues to express 

concern due to impacts to wetlands. 

EPA recommended that the issue of 

avoiding/minimizing impacts to 

wetlands be further addressed in the 

Record of Decision.

ERP No. F–FHW–F40364–WI, 

Burlington Bypass State Trunk Highway 

Project, Construction, from WI–36, WI–

11 and WI–83, Funding and COE 

Section 404 Permit, In the City of 

Burlington, Racine, and Walworth 

Counties, WI.

Summary: While EPA’s previous 

objection regarding direct impacts to the 

fresh fen have been avoided, EPA 

continues to express concerns about 

indirect impacts to the fen and the need 

to provide a detailed wetland 

compensation plan.

ERP No. F–IBW–G39039–00, Rio 

Grande Canalization Project (RGCP), 

Long-Term River Management 

Alternatives Practices, Implementation, 

from below Percha Dam in Sierra 

County, NM to American Dam in El 

Paso, TX. 

Summary: EPA has no objection to the 

prepared action. 

ERP No. F–NPS–G65086–TX, Big 

Bend National Park General 

Management Plan, Implementation, 

Brewster County, TX. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–NPS–K65251–AZ, 

Petrified Forest National Park General 

Management Plan Revision, 

Implementation, Navajo and Apache 

Counties, AZ.

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–NPS–K65267–CA, Point 

Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) and the 

North District of Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area (GGNRA) Fire 

Management Plan, Implementation, 

Marin County, CA. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

ERP No. FB–NOA–G64002–00, Reef 

Fish Fishery Management Plan 

Amendment 22, To Set Red Snapper 

Sustainable Fisheries Act Targets and 

Thresholds, Set a Rebuilding Plan, and 

Establish Bycatch Reporting 

Methodologies for the Reef Fish Fishery, 

Gulf of Mexico.

Summary: While EPA has no 

objection to the proposed action, EPA 

did request clarification on whether 

additional regulatory controls in the 

Shrimp FMP may be necessary to limit 

the juvenile red snapper that are caught 

as bycatch in shrimp fishery.

Dated: September 28, 2004. 

Ken Mittelholtz, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 04–22088 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–6656–2] 

Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7167 or http://www.epa.gov/

compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements 

Filed September 20, 2004 through 

September 24, 2004 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 040455, Draft EIS, AFS, WA,

Fish Passage and Aquatic Habitat 

Restoration at Hemlock Dam, 

Implementation, Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest, Mount Adams 

District, Skamania County, WA, 

Comment Period Ends: November 15, 

2004, Contact: Bengt Coffin (509) 

395–3425. 

EIS No. 040456, Draft EIS, NRS, OR,

Williamson River Delta Restoration 

Project, To Restore and Maintain the 

Ecological Functions of the Delta, 

Williamson River, Klamath County, 

OR, Comment Period Ends: November 

15, 2004, Contact: Kevin Conroy (541) 

883–6924. Ext 115. 

EIS No. 040457, Draft Supplement, AFS, 

AZ, NM, Southwestern Region 

Amendment of Forest Plans, Updated 

Information, Implementation, 

Standard and Guidelines for Northern 

Goshawk and Mexican Spotted Owl, 

AZ and NM, Comment Period Ends:

November 15, 2004, Contact: Lou 

Wottering (505) 842–3898. 

EIS No. 040458, Draft EIS, NIH, MD,

National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

Master Plan 2003 Update, National 

Institutes of Health Main Campus, 

Bethesda, MD, Montgomery County, 

MD, Comment Period Ends:

November 29, 2004, Contact: Ron 

Wilson (301) 496–5037. 

EIS No. 040459, Draft EIS, IBR, CA,

Sacramento River Settlement 

Contractors (SRSR) To Renew the 

Settlement Contractors Long-Term 

Contract Renewal for 145 Contractors, 

Central Valley Project (CVP), 

Sacramento River, Shasta, Tehama, 

Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, 

Sacramento, Portion of Placer and 

Solano Counties, CA, Comment 

Period Ends: November 15, 2004, 

Contact: Buford Holt (916) 989–7179.

Dated: September 28, 2004. 

Ken Mittelholtz, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 04–22089 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7822–9] 

Availability of FY 03 Grant 

Performance Reports for State of KY; 

and the Local Agencies of Louisville, 

KY, Knox County, TN and MemphisShelby County, TN

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of grantee 

performance evaluation reports. 

SUMMARY: EPA’s grant regulations (40 

CFR 35.115) require the Agency to 

evaluate the performance of agencies 

which receive grants. EPA’s regulations 

for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7) 

require that the Agency notify the 

public of the availability of the reports 

of such evaluations. EPA performed 

end-of-year evaluations of one state air 

pollution control program 

(Commonwealth of Kentucky); and three 

local programs (Louisville Metro Air 

Pollution Control District, KY; 

Memphis-Shelby County Health 

Department, TN; and Knox County 

Department of Air Quality Management, 

TN). The four evaluations were 

conducted to assess the agencies’

performance under the grants awarded 

by EPA under authority of section 105 

of the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 4 has 

prepared reports for each agency 

identified above and these reports are 

now available for public inspection.

ADDRESSES: The reports may be 

examined at the EPA’s Region 4 office, 

61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303, in the Air, Pesticides, and Toxics 

Management Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marie Persinger (404) 562–9048 for 

information concerning the State of 

Kentucky and the local agency of 

Louisville, Kentucky; and Rayna D. 

Brown (404) 562–9093 for the local 

agencies of Knox County, Tennessee 

and Memphis-Shelby County, 

Tennessee. They may be contacted at 

the above Region 4 address.