# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 57 Fed. Reg. 19906 1992

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Apr 18 11:47:53 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 90 / Friday, May 8, 1992 / Notices

(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) requires that certain information collection requirements be approved by the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) before information is demanded ofthe public. OMB has issued a final rule on the Paperwork Burdens on the Public (48 FR 13666) dated March 31, 1983. Ample opportunity is provided in the proposed rules for the interested public to participate with thePower Marketing Administration in the development of rates. Nevertheless, this is at their sole selection. There is no requirement that members ofthe public participating in the development ofthe P-DP firmpower and firm and nonfirm transmission service rates supply information about themselves to the Government. It follows that the P-DP firm power and firm and nonfirm transmission service rates are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: In compliance with theNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Council ofEnvironmental Quality Regulations (40CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and DOE guidelines published at 52 FR47662on December 15, 1987, Western conducts environmental evaluations of the P-DP firm power and firm and nonfirm transmission service rate adjustments and develops the appropriate level ofenvironmental documentation prior to the implementation ofany rate adjustment.

Issued at Golden, Colorado, April 27, 1992. William H. Clagett, Administrator. [FR Doc. 92-10858Filed 5-.7-92; 8:45 am]

BILLING COOE 6450-01-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY [OAR-FRL-4131-61
State Implementation Plans for Nonattainment Areas for Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice announcing findings of failure to submit required State Implementation Plans (SIP's).

SUMMARY: The EPA gives notice that it made a finding,pursuant to sections 179(a)(1) and 110(k) of the CleanAir Act (Act) as amended in 1990 (Pub. L.No. 101-549, November 15, 1990), 42 U.S.C. 7509(a)(1) and 7410, foreach State listed in table A.The EPA has determined that each State hasfailed to submit an implementation plan, plan element, or "complete plan" [a submission satisfying the minimum criteria established under section 110(k)(1)(A)] for particulate matter less than orequal
to 10 microns (PM-10) as required under the provisions of the Act. This notice addresses the requirement under section 189(a)(2)(A) of the Act that each State shall submit the plan required under section 189(a)(1) within 1 year of the date ofthe enactment ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (i.e., by November 15, 1991) for areas designated nonattainment under section 107(d)(4), except that the provision required under section 189(a)(1)(A) relating to new

source review requirements shall be submitted no later than June 30, 1992.

This notice announces the findings made in December 1991 via letters sent by the EPA Regional Administrators to 11 States notifying each ofits failure to make a required PM-lC SIP submittal or its failure to submit a complete PM-10 SIP submittal.The letters triggered the 18-month timeclock for the mandatory application ofsanctions under section 179(a) and the 24-month timeclock for promulgation ofa Federal implementation plan under section 110(c)(1).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. General questions concerning this notice should he addressed to Andrew M. Smith, Air Quality Management Division (MD-15), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5398 orFTS 629-5398. For questions related to a specific area, please contact the appropriate Regional Office listed below.

Regional offices 

# [ States

* Susan Studlien, Chief, Air

Programs Branch, EPA Region I (APB-2311), JFK Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211. (617) 565-3221; FTS 835- 3221. * William S. Baker, Chief, Air

Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 26 Federal Plaza. New York, NY 10278, (212) 264-2517; FTS 264-2517. * Marcia Spink, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 111, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-9075; FTS 597- 9075. " Stephen H. Rothblatt, Chief.

Air and Radiation Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-2211; FTS 353-2211. Connecticut.

Puerto Rico.

Pennsylvania.

Illinois, Indiana. Regional offices States

" Gary Gulezian, Chief, Air Michigan.

Toxics and Radiation Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-8559; FTS
353-8559. " Douglas M. Skie, Chief, Air Colorado,

Programs Branch, EPA Montana. Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Denver Place-Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2405, (303) 293-1750; FTS 330- 1750. " David L.Calkins, Chief, Air Arizona, California.

Programs Branch, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)744-1219; FTS 484-1219. " George Abel, Chief, Air Pro- Idaho.

grams Branch, EPA Region X, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 442- 1275; FTS 399-1275.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I.Background

On March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101), EPA announced those areas ofthecountry designated nonattainment for PM-10by operation oflaw upon enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments [see sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 107(d)(2) of the Act]. On August 8, 1991 (56FR 37654), EPA published a notice correcting some of these designations andfurther explaining EPA's rationale for the designations. The EPA also announced

onMarch 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101) that all ofthe areas designated as nonattainment forPM-10by operation oflaw upon enactment ofthe 1990 Amendments were classified as moderate nonattainment areas atthat time [see section 188(a)]. Those States containing areas designated nonattainment andclassified as moderate forPM-10 upon enactment of the Amendments were required to adopt and submit to EPA a SIPfor those areas byNovember 15, 1991 [see section 189(a)].

As a general matter, all ofthese initial moderate areas are required to submit a SIP meeting the requirements for nonattainment areas identified in section 172 ofthe Act and the requirements specific to PM-10in subpart 4 ofPart D.In particular, section 189(a) ofthe Act required that all ofthe initial moderate PM-10nonattainzment

areas submit a SIP by November 15, 1991, which includes the following:

1.Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment by December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that date is impracticable [see section 189(a)(1)(B)]. 19906

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19906 1992Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 90 / Friday, May 8, 1992 / Notices

2. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including reasonably available control technology-RACT) for the control of PM-10 are implemented byDecember 10, 1993 [see section 189(a)(1)(C)]. 1

In addition, States are required to submit a new source permit program meeting the requirements ofPart D, Title Iofthe Act, requiring permits for the construction and operation ofnew and modified major stationary sources of PM-10 (including, as appropriate, PM-10 precursors) [see section 189(a)(1)(A) and 189(e)]. A SIPrevision meeting this requirement is dueby June 30, 1992 for all ofthe initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas [see section 189(a)(2)(A)].

The Act establishes specific consequences if a State fails to meet certain requirements. Ofparticular relevance here are sections 179and 110(k). Section 179 contains the provisions for mandatory application of sanctions. Section 179(a) sets forth the various findings uponwhich application ofa sanction is based. The findings that, for a nonattainment area, a State has failed to submit a plan or one or more elements of a plan required under the Act or has failed to make a submission for such anarea that meets the minimum completeness criteria established under section 110(k) [see 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, as amended by 56FR 42216 (August 26, 1991)] are the findings relevant tothis announcement.

Today. EPA is announcing its previous determination that nine States have failed to submit a required plan orplan elementfor one ormore of theinitial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas in those States and that two States have failed to submit a required plan orplan element for such areas satisfying the completeness criteria. Under section 179(a), the Administrator must impose

oneofthe sanctions specified in section 179(b) 18 months after the findingunless EPA determines within that 18-month period that a complete submittal has beenmade. Ifthe State still has failed to make a complete submittal after 24 months, then EPA must impose both sanctions specified in section 179(b).

I Note that some ofthe general nonattainment planprovisions specified in section 172(cl are inextricably related to theprovisions specified in thePM-10 subpart anddue on November 15, 1991. For example, section 172(c)(1) (requiring provisions to implement RACMincluding RACT) must beread together with the section 189(a)(1)(C) RACM requirement. Similarly, acomprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions [section 172(c)(3)] is integral to an adequate demonstration Isection 189(a)(1)(B)J. These general nonattainment provisions must be reflected inor subsumed within the relevant PM-I specific submittalsdue November 15, 1991. Finally, section 110(c)(1) has also been amended to require that the Administrator promulgate a Federal implementation plan within 2 years after

a findingthat a State has failed to submit a required plan element or plan

or finding that a required plan or plan element does not satisfy the completeness criteria. II.States for Which EPAis Making a Finding
Arizona

On August 30, 1991, a letter was sent from Region IX's AirDivision Director to Arizona's Director ofthe Office ofAir Quality explaining the general procedure EPA intended to follow in addressing any State failure to submit SIP's for theinitial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas by the statutory deadline. On December 16, 1991, EPA initiated this process by finding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) ofthe Act, that Arizona hadfailed to submit a SIP to meet the statutory deadline of November 15, 1991 for theNogales and Douglas PM-10 nonattainment areas. California

On August 30, 1991, a letter was sent from Region IX's Air Division Director to theDirector oftheCalifornia Air Resources Board explaining the general procedure EPA intended to follow in addressing any State failure to submit SIP'sfor the initial moderate PM-la nonattainment areas by the statutory deadline. On December 16, 1991, EPA initiated this process by finding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) ofthe Act, that California had failed to submit a SIP to meet the statutory deadline of November 15, 1991 for the Searles Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Imperial Valley, and Owens Valley moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.The EPA subsequently received PM-la submittals for the SanJoaquin Valley and Owens Valley moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas from the California AirResources Board. The SanJoaquin SIP submittal

was dated December 24, 1991, and the Owens Valley submittal was dated January 9, 1992. The EPA is currently reviewing the San Joaquin and Owens Valley plans for completeness pursuant to section 110(k)(1). IfEPA finds the plan complete, then the State's deficiency under section 179(a)(1) for these areas will be corrected, and the sanctions process initiated for these areas pursuant to section 179(a)(1) will be stopped at that time.
Colorado

On November 1,1991, a letter was sent from Region VIII's Regional Administrator to Colorado's Governor explaining the general procedure EPA intended to follow in addressing any State failure to submit SIP's for the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas by the statutory deadline. On December 16, 1991, EPA initiated this process byfinding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) ofthe amended Act, that Colorado had failed to submit a SIP to meet the statutory deadline of November 15, 1991 forthe Aspen, Denver,Canon City, Lamar,Pagosa Springs, andTelluride moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. Connecticut

On October 1,1991, a letter was sent from Region I's DirectoroftheAir, Pesticides, andToxics Management Division to Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection explaining the procedure EPAintended touse in addressing any State failure to submit a SIPfor the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas by the statutory deadline. On December 16, 1991, EPA initiated this process byfinding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) ofthe amended Act,that Connecticut had failed to submit a SIPtomeet the statutory deadline ofNovember 15, 1991 for theNew Haven moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. Idaho

On August 21, 1991, a letter was sent from Region X's Regional Administrator to the Administrator ofthe Division of Environmental Quality ofIdaho's Department ofHealth andWelfare explaining the procedure EPA intended touse in addressing any State failure to submit PM-10 SIP'sfor the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas bythe statutory deadline. Additionally,

on September 9, 1991, the ChiefofEPA's Region XAir and Radiation Branch sent

a letter to the Acting Chiefofthe Bureau ofAir Quality ofIdaho's Department of Health and Welfare, further explaining the procedure. OnDecember 18, 1991, EPA initiated this process by finding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) of the amended Act, that Idaho had failed to submit a SIP to meet the statutory deadline ofNovember 15, 1991 forthe Pinehurst,Pocatello, and Sandpoint moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. Illinois

OnAugust 16, 1991, the EPA received revisions to theIllinois SIPfor the McCook, Lake Calumet, and Granite City moderate PM-10nonattainment

areas. In that submittal, the State requested parallel processing ofthe draft rules. The submittal for these PM19907

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19907 1992Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 90 / Friday, May 8, 1992 / Notices

10nonattanment areas was reviewed for completeness and, on October 3, 1991, EPA denied the request for parallel processing because certain required components were absent orprovided insufficient detail.On October 9,1991, EPA received additional draftproposed rules from thefflinois Division ofAir Pollution Control for the Granite City moderate PM-10nonattainment area. On October 1, 1991, a letter was sent from Region V's Air andRadiation Division Director tothe Manager ofthe Illinois Division ofAirPollution control. explaining the general procedure EPA intended to follow in addressing any State failure to submit SIP's forthe initialmoderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas by the statutory deadline. Illinois did notsubmit a complete SIPrevision fortheMcCook, Lake Calmiet, and Granite Citymoderate PM-10 nonattainment areas inresponse to the October 10,1991letter. Therefore, on December 17, 191, EPAmade a finding, pursant to sectLions 110(k) and 179(a) of the Actthat theAugust16 1961 and the October 9.1991 submittalswere incomplete and. therefore, linois failed
to submita required complete PM-10 SIP for the McCook. Lake 

### Calument, and Granite City PM-10nonattainmnt

areas.
Indiana

On October 8, 1991, a letter was sent from Region V's Air andRadiation DivisionDirector toIndiana's Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office ofAir Management, explaining the general procedure EPA intendedto followin addressing any State failure tosubmit SIP's for the initial moderate PM-l0 nonattainment areas by the statutory deadline. On December 17, 1991, EPA initiated this process by finding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) ofthe Act, that Indiana hadfailed to submit a SIP tomeet the statutory deadline of November 15,1991 for theLake County and Vermillion County moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. Michigan

On October 1,1991. a letter was sent from RegionV's Air and Radiation Division Director to the Directorof Michigan's Division ofAirQuality. Department ofNatural Resources, explaining the general procedure EPA intended to follow in addressing any State failure to submit SIP's for the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas by the statutory deadline. On November 19, 1991, EPAreceived revisions to theMichigan SIPfor the Wayne CountyPM-10 nonattainment

area. The EPA reviewed the submittal for completeness pursuant to section 110(k)(1) oftheamended Act and found that the submittal didnot contain many ofthe required elements, butrather consisted primarily ofa commitment to adopt the required elements. The EPA doesnot believe that this submittal is appropriate fora conditional approval under section 110(k)(4). Therefore, on December 17, 1991, EPA sent a letter to the State ofMichigan finding, pursuant to sections 110(k) and 179(a), that Michigan failed to submit arequired completePM-10 SIP forthe Wayne Countymoderate PM-10 nonattainment

area. Montana OnNovember 1.1991. a letterwas sent from Region VIII'sRegional Administrator to Montana's Governor explaining the general procedure EPA intended tofollow in addressing any State failure to submit SIP's forthe

. initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas bythe statutory deadline. On December 16.1991. EPAinitiated this process by finding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) ofthe amended Act. that Montana had failed to submit a SIP to meet thestatutory deadline of November 15,1991 forthe Butte, Columbia Falls, and Missoula moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. Pennsylvania

On October 11, 1991. a letter was sent from Region [11's Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division Director to theDirector ofPennsylvanla's Bureau ofAir Quality Control explaining thegeneral procedure EPA intended to follow in addressing any State failure to submit SIP's for the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas by the statutory deadline. OnDecember 16,1991. EPA initiated this process by finding. pursuant tosection 179(a)(1) ofthe amended Act.that Pennsylvania had failed to submit a SIPto meet the statutory deadline ofNovember 15, 1991 for the Liberty Borough moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. Puerto Rico On September 26,1991, a letter was sent from Region H's Air andWaste Management Division Director to the Chairman ofPuerto Rico's Environmental QualityBoard explaining the general procedure EPA intended to follow in addressing any State failure to submit SIP's for the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas by the statutory deadline. On December 16, 1991. EPA initiated this process by finding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) of the Act. that Puerto Rico had-failed to submit a SIPto meet the statutory deadline ofNovember 15, 1991 for the Guaynabo moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. IV. Conclusion

The EPA hasmade findingsunder section 179(a)(1) ofthe Act thatthe States listed In Table A failed to submit

aplan, plan element, or a complete plan

as required under section 189(a)(2) and 110(k) oftheAct.

Authority-42U.S.C. 7410(k), 7410(m), 7502, 7509(a), 7500(b). 713.7513a(a). and7601.

Dated: May 4.1992. William G. Rosenberg, AssistantAdministrator forAirand Radiation.

TABLE A.--STATES FOUND TO HAVE

FAILED TO SUBMiT SPS OR COMPLETE SIP'S FOR THE FOLLOWiNG RESPECTVE MODERATE PM-1O NONATTAINMENT AREAS 1

State Area ofconcern

Arizona

......... Douglas.'2 NogalesCalifornia

........... lmperial Valley, owens Valley. San Jeaiuin Valley. Seertee

Colorado

................. Aspen. Denver. Canon City.

Lamer, Pagosa Springs, TelConnecticut....... New HaVen. Idaho

.................. Plnehrst, Pocatello SendIllinois

........... McCook. s Lake Calunet,'

GraiteCity. Indiana

. ...... . tae County, Vermilton Michigan........

. Wayn County.

Montana

................... Butte, Columbia Falls, MissouPennsyvameia...... Lberty Bosaug Puot Rco

.. _ Gualeso,

I For effiiency, the i legal boundaries for the

areas addressed intodae notice have not been listed. The refemee to mom in On notice we and intended to a as stilute fo the f ul leleg wre sa tai at 56 FR 5W 5 (=.Z1 ber 6. 11 n w ic EPA formally codified the designations andclassillcations foreach of theInitial PM-I m<deraftnonattaient are.

' The W loe benideriesfor the "Paul Sow Douglas planing area" are listed Inthe November 6,1991 Fed Rera l t

e noce under Coche County (see 56 FR 56715). For PI-10 SIP prepara- tion and ubmal pu te State has treated the area as two distinct Ihkit moderate PM-1O nonattainment wow Pul Spur wd Dougla* In today's notice EPA is anoci i deemminetion that the State of Arizona has aed to submit a required PM-10 SIP for the Douglas portion of this planning area.

'The fulllegal boundares for thisarea of concern are Msted infie Novembar 6, 1991 Federal Registw note under Cook Cunty as tem a, Lyon@ Township (ee 56FR 56753).

4 Th1 ful legal boundariesfor tmis arm concern are ited intho November k+ ~9l Federal Rege- ter notice under Cook County as itemb (se 56 FR 56753).

'The ful legal boundaries for this area of concern are listed inthe November 6, 89 Federal Regis- te notie under Allegheny Co (see 56 FR 568M39

[FR Doc. 92-10918 Filed 5-7-92; 8.45 am]
BILLING CODE 6s0-50-1 .. .. 9 M lg00

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19908 1992Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 90 / Friday, May 8, 1992 / Notices

[ER-FRL-4131-51

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations;Availabilityof EPA Comments

Availability ofEPA comments prepared April 20, 1992 Through April 24, 1992 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean AirAct and section 102(2)(c) ofthe National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office ofFederal Activities at (202) 260-5076.

An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact
statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 10, 1992 (57 FR 12499).

Draft EISs

ERP No. DCOE-E50006-NC Rating EC2. Hobucken Bridge Replacement, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge (AIWW), Implementation, Pamlico County, NC.

Summary:EPA has environmental

concerns about mitigating the unavoidable wetland losses associated with the project's construction. The noted mitigation plan to replace these

resources seems satisfactory, however. EPA would like to see this assumption verified by additional information provided in the final document.

ERP No. D-FAA-F51040-IN Rating EC2, Indianapolis International Airport Master Plan Development, Construction and Operation, Runway 5L/23RParallel
to existing Runway 14/32 and connecting to Runways 5R/23L and 5L/ 23R, Airport Layout Plan, Approval, Funding and Section 404Permit, Marion County, IN.

Summary:EPA requested that additional information be included in the final EIS concerning a wetlands mitigation plan, air quality, water quality and noise impacts.

ERP No. D-FHW-E40742-NC Rating EC2. 1--85 Greensboro Bypass Study Area Transportation Improvement, 1-85 South of Greensboro to 1-40/85 east of Greensboro, Funding, Possible Section 404 Permit, City of Greensboro, Guilford County,NC.

Summary:EPA believes that either the existing corridor or the GRAND/85 build alternative are environmentally preferred. EPA requested that the final EIS contain addition information concerning the build on existing corridor, stream channel relocation, reestablishment ofvegetation, wetland avoidance or mitigation,preservation of hardwood orforested areas, and impacts ofhazardous waste sites. ERP No. D-GSA-B81006-MA Rating EC2, New United States Courthouse in Boston, Construction and Operation, Site Selection, Fan Pier in theFort Point Channel, Boston, MA.

Summary: EPA expressed concern about secondary and cumulative impacts, and air quality impacts.

ERP No. D-SFW-H61020-IA Rating EC2. Brushy Creek State Recreation Area (BCSRA) Dam and Lake Project, Implementation, Funding, NPDES Permit and Section 404Permit, Des Moines River, Several Counties, IA.

Summary: EPA had environmental

concerns with the project because impacts from point and non-point

sources were not adequately addressed in the document.

ERP No. D-USA-K11050-HI Rating LO, Strategic Target SystemProgram, Launching ofnonnuclear payloads from the Kauai Test Facility at thePacific Missile Test Facility, Island ofKauai, I.Summary: EPA expressed a lack of objection to the proposed project and encouraged the Department ofDefense
to implement pollution prevention

measures for proposed and ongoing activities at the test facility.

Final EISs

ERPNo. F-AFS--102022-00

Pike and San Isabel National Forests/ Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, Leasing, Several Counties, CO and KS.

Summary:EPA has environmental

concerns with this final EIS, because it is unclear to what level analysis was performed in terms ofdata quantity, and consistency. Also, EPA was unable to determine whether any field verification of the referenced extrapolations of data has been conducted or instead will be performed at a later stage. EPA recommends that the affected lease be issued with the stipulation that adequate environmental baseline data, as determined by validation monitoring, be collected prior to submitting the Application ofPermit to Drill (APD).

ERPNo.F-AFS--J60008-WY

Teton Village Federal Tract/Diamond LRanch Land Exchange, Special Use Permits, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Teton County,WY.

Summary:EPA has no objections to the preferred alternative.

ERPNo.F-BOP-D81021-WV

Beckley Federal Correctional Institution, Construction and Operation., Raleigh County,WV. Summary:EPA expressed concern about the alternatives analysis and believes that it was insufficient considering the tiered approach would have been more appropriate. The final EIS lacked a detailed comparison of other reasonable alternatives with lesser impacts (primarily loss of terrestrial habitat).

ERPNo.F-FR C-CO5144-N
Mount HopePumped Storage Hydroelectric Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, License Section 404Permit, Morris County, NJ.

Summary:EPAbelieves that implementation ofthe applicants' proposal with FERC staffrecommendations supplemental mitigation measures adequately addresses EPAs's concerns. EPA recommends that the license be conditioned to include all ofthe mitigation measures recommended by FERC staff.
ERPNo.F-UAF-K1048-CA George AirForce Base (AFB) Disposal andReuse, Implementation, San Bernardino, CA.

Summary:EPA objected tothis documents' continued lack ofspecificity regarding cumulative impacts and potential mitigation measures. EPA recommended that theRecord of Decision commit to supplement NEPA documentation to focus onthe environmental issues related to the actual proposed reuse, including conformance with environmental regulations.

Dated: May 5,1992. Widliam D.Dickerson, DeputyDirector. Office ofFederalActivities. [FR Doc.92-10845Filed 5-7-92; 8:45 am]

WILUNG CODE 6560-50-M

[ER-FRL-41

Environmental Impact Statements; Availability

ResponsibleAgency: Office ofFederal Activities, General Information (202) 260-5076 OR(202] 260-5076. Availability ofEnvironmental Impact Statements Filed April 27, 1992 Through May 01, 1992 Pursuant to40 CFR 1506.9.

EISNo. 920140, FINAL EIS,AFS, MT, Upper Ruby Cattle andHorse Allotment Management Plan,Centennial Divide Road No. 100 Reconstruction and management Area Designation for portions ofthe Ruby River, Implementation, Beaverhead National Forest, Sheridan, Due: June 08, 1992, Contact: Mark Petroni (406) 842-5432. 

### 19909 19909

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19909 1992Federal Register / Vol. 57, No, 90 / Friday, May 8, 1992 / Notices

EIS No. 920141, SECOND FINAL EIS (USA. UT, Dugway Proving Ground Biological Aerosol Test Facility (BATF) Additional Information, New Alternative. Consolidated Life Science Test Facility (LSTF), Construction and Operation, Baker Laboratory, Tooele County, UT, Due:June 08 1992, Contact: Ms. Melynda Petrie (801) 831-2116.

EIS No. 920142, FINAL EIS, FHW, FL. US 1/FL-5 Upgrading, Abaco Road on Key Largo to Card Sound Road, Updated Information, Funding and Coast Guard Bridges, NPDES and COE Permits, Dade and Monroe Counties, FL, Due: June 08, 1992, Contact: J.R. Skinner (904) 681- 7223.

EIS No. 920143, FINAL EIS, AFS, CA, CASA-Guard Timber Sale, Implementation, Sequoia National Forest, Cannell Meadow Ranger District, Tulare and Kern Counties, CA,Due: June 08, 1992, Contact: Susan Porter (209) 784-1500.

EIS No. 920144, DRAFT EIS, FHW, MN, 1-494 Reconstruction Corridor Study, 1-394 on thewest to the Minnesota River, Funding and Section 404 Permit, Hennepin County, MN, Due: June 22 1992 Contact: Stephen Bahler (612)290-3259.

UIS No. 920145, DRAFT EIS, FHW, AK, Third Street Widening Project. Improvement, Old Steese Highway and Hamilton Avenue, Funding and Right-ofWay Acquisition, Fairbanks North Star Borough, AK. Due:June 22, 1992, Contact-Stephen A. Moreno (907) 586- 7428.

EIS No. 920146, DRAFT EIS. FAA, TN. Memphis International Airport, Construction and Operation, Runway 18L-36R, Relocation of Swinnea Road. portion ofWinchester Road and Shelby Drive, Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Approval, Funding and section 404 Permit, Shelby County, TN, Due: June 22. 1992, Contact: Peggy S. Kelly (901) 544- 3495.

EISNo. 920147, FINAL EIS, FHW, MT. 1-15/North Helena Valley Interchange Improvements, 1-15 to Montana Avenue, Construction and Funding, Lewis and Clark County, MT,Due: June 15, 1992, Contact: Dale Paulson (406)449-5310.

EISNo. 920148, FINAL EIS,ICC, OH, Indiana and Ohio Railroad Line, Construction and Operation extending from thenorthern border at Brecon to the southern city limits of Mason, Rightof-Way, Butler, Warren, and Hamilton Counties, OH,Due-June 08, 1902, Contact: Elaine K. Kaiser (202) 927-7684.

EIS No. 920149, FINAL EIS, GSA, GA, Internal Revenue Service, Service Center Annex Consolidation, Construction, Chamblee, GA, Due: June 08, 1992, Contact: Alice Coneybeer (404) 331-1831. EISNo. 920150, DRAFT EIS,AFS, AK, Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC) LongTerm Timber Sale Contract, Implementation, Southeast Chichagof Project Area, Tongass National Forest, AK, Due: June 22,1992, Contact: Gordan Anderson (907) 747-6671.

EISNo.920151, FINAL EIS, MMS, AL CA, FL. LA, NC, AK, DE, GA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, TX,WA, OR, SC. VA, Mid 1992 thru Mid 1997 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Comprehensive Gas and Oil Resources Management Program, Schedule ofSales Adoption, Leasing, Offshore Coastal Counties ofAL, AK, CA. DE, FL, GA, LA,MD, NJ, NY, NC, OR, RI, SC, TX, VA andWA, Due: June 08, 1992. Contact: Debra Purvis (703) 787-1674.

EIS No. 920152, FINAL EIS,FHW, CA, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Improvements, CA-73 Extension between 1-5 in San Juan Capistrano City toJamboree Road in Newport Beach City,Funding and Section 404 Permit, Orange County, CA, Due: June 08, 1992, Contact: JamesJ. Bednar (916] save1310.
Amended Notices

EISNo. 910401, DRAFT EIS, FAA, MN, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Runway 4-22 Extension, Funding, Wold-Chamberlain Field. Hennepin County, MN, Due: May 29, 1992 Contact: Glen Orcutt (612) 725-7221 Published F& 11-15-91 Review period extended.

EIS No. 920082, DRAFT EIS, FTA, CA, SanFrancisco International Airport Extension. Transportation Improvements, Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Funding. San Mateo County. CA. Due:May 18,1992, Contact: Robert Hom (415) 744-3116. Published FR -03-13-92- Review period extended.

Dated:May 5,1992. William D. Dickerson, DeputyDirector, Officerof FederaActivities. [FR Doc. 92-10844Filed 5-7-92; 8:45 aml

BILIJNG CODE 65W60-My

[OPP-4206BA; FRL-4061-91

Missouri Plan forCertification of Commercial and Private Applicatorsof Restricted Use Pesticides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice ofapproval ofamended Missouri State Plan.
SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of December 24, 1991, EPA announced its intent to approve the amended Missouri Plan for Certification of Commercial and Private Applicators ofRestricted Use Pesticides. EPA hereby announces final approval ofthis amended Plan.
ADDRESSES: Copies ofthe amended Missouri Plan are available focreview
at the following locations during normal business hours: 1. Division ofPlant Industries, Missouri

Department ofAgriculture, 1616 Missouri Boulevard, Jefferson City. MO 65101. 2. Toxics and Pesticides Branch, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, 726Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 60101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. David Ramsey, (314) 636-5223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register ofDecember 24, 1901 (56 FR 66632), EPA announced its intent
to approve the Missouri Plan for Certification of Commercial and Private Applicators ofRestricted Use Pesticides. Interested persons were given 30 days to comment. No comments were received. EPA therefore grants final approval of the amended Missouri Plan for Certification of Commercial and Private Applicators ofRestricted Use Pesticides.

Date& April28 1992. Morris Kay, RegionalAdministratorRegion VII. [FRDoc. 92-10819 Filed 5-7-92; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE

[FRL-4131-21

lazardous Waste Management, Inc.; Proposed Settlement

AGENCY. Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Under section 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) has agreed to settle claims for past response cost at the Hazardous Waste Management, Inc. site in Southlake. Texas with the following parties:
Amrex Investment Company Armatek, Inc. Ashland Chemical, Inc. Austin Pathology Associates Brackenridge Hospital Cabell's Dairies Chemical Reclamation Services, Inc. Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. CookFort Worth Children's Medical

Center Data General Corporation Exide Corporation (for Dixie Metals

Company) Fenton environmental Technologies, Inc. 19910

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19910 1992