+(,121/,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

of Management and Budget (OMB)

before information is demanded of the

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 the Power Marketing

Administration in the development of

rates. Nevertheless, this is at their sole

selection. There is no requirement that

members of the public participating in

the development of the P-DP firm power

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 the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

Council of Environmental Quality

Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through

1508), and DOE guidelines published at

52 FR 47662 on 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 of environmental

documentation prior to the

implementation of any rate adjustment.

Issued at Golden, Colorado, April 27, 1992.

William H. Clagett,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 92-10858 Filed 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 Clean Air Act

(Act) as amended in 1990 (Pub. L. No.

101-549, November 15, 1990), 42 U.S.C.

7509(a)(1) and 7410, for each State listed

in table A. The EPA has determined that

each State has failed 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 or equal

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 of the enactment of the 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 of its 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 of sanctions under section

179(a) and the 24-month timeclock for

promulgation of a 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 or FTS

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 of the country

designated nonattainment for PM-10 by

operation of law upon enactment of the

1990 Amendments [see sections

107(d)(4)(B) and 107(d)(2) of the Act]. On

August 8, 1991 (56 FR 37654), EPA

published a notice correcting some of

these designations and further

explaining EPA's rationale for the

designations. The EPA also announced

on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101) that all

of the areas designated as

nonattainment for PM-10 by operation

of law upon enactment of the 1990

Amendments were classified as

moderate nonattainment areas at that

time [see section 188(a)]. Those States

containing areas designated

nonattainment and classified as

moderate for PM-10 upon enactment of

the Amendments were required to adopt

and submit to EPA a SIP for those areas

by November 15, 1991 [see section

189(a)].

As a general matter, all of these initial

moderate areas are required to submit a

SIP meeting the requirements for

nonattainment areas identified in

section 172 of the Act and the

requirements specific to PM-10 in

subpart 4 of Part D. In particular, section

189(a) of the Act required that all of the

initial moderate PM-10 nonattainzment

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 1992
Federal 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 by December

10, 1993 [see section 189(a)(1)(C)]. 1

In addition, States are required to

submit a new source permit program

meeting the requirements of Part D, Title

I of the Act, requiring permits for the

construction and operation of new and

modified major stationary sources of

PM-10 (including, as appropriate, PM-10

precursors) [see section 189(a)(1)(A) and

189(e)]. A SIP revision meeting this

requirement is due by June 30, 1992 for

all of the 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. Of particular

relevance here are sections 179 and

110(k). Section 179 contains the

provisions for mandatory application of

sanctions. Section 179(a) sets forth the

various findings upon which application

of a 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 an area that meets the minimum

completeness criteria established under

section 110(k) [see 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V, as amended by 56 FR 42216

(August 26, 1991)] are the findings

relevant to this announcement.

Today. EPA is announcing its previous

determination that nine States have

failed to submit a required plan or plan

element for one or more of the initial

moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas in

those States and that two States have

failed to submit a required plan or plan

element for such areas satisfying the

completeness criteria. Under section

179(a), the Administrator must impose

one of the sanctions specified in section

179(b) 18 months after the finding unless

EPA determines within that 18-month

period that a complete submittal has

been made. If the 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 of the general nonattainment

plan provisions specified in section 172(cl are inextricably related to the provisions specified in

the PM-10 subpart and due on November 15, 1991.

For example, section 172(c)(1) (requiring provisions

to implement RACM including RACT) must be read

together with the section 189(a)(1)(C) RACM

requirement. Similarly, a comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions [section

172(c)(3)] is integral to an adequate demonstration

Isection 189(a)(1)(B)J. These general nonattainment

provisions must be reflected in or subsumed within

the relevant PM-I specific submittals due

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 finding that 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 EPA is Making a

Finding

Arizona

On August 30, 1991, a letter was sent

from Region IX's Air Division Director to

Arizona's Director of the Office of Air

Quality 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 Arizona had failed to submit a SIP

to meet the statutory deadline of

November 15, 1991 for the Nogales and

Douglas PM-10 nonattainment areas.

California

On August 30, 1991, a letter was sent

from Region IX's Air Division Director to

the Director of the California Air

Resources Board explaining the general

procedure EPA intended to follow in

addressing any State failure to submit

SIP's for 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) of the 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 San Joaquin Valley and Owens

Valley moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas from the California Air Resources

Board. The San Joaquin 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). If EPA 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 by finding, pursuant to section

179(a)(1) of the amended Act, that

Colorado had failed to submit a SIP to

meet the statutory deadline of

November 15, 1991 for the Aspen,

Denver, Canon City, Lamar, Pagosa

Springs, and Telluride moderate PM-10

nonattainment areas.

Connecticut

On October 1, 1991, a letter was sent

from Region I's Director of the Air,

Pesticides, and Toxics Management

Division to Connecticut's Department of

Environmental Protection explaining the

procedure EPA intended to use in

addressing any State failure to submit a

SIP 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

amended Act, that Connecticut had

failed to submit a SIP to meet the

statutory deadline of November 15, 1991

for the New Haven moderate PM-10

nonattainment area.

Idaho

On August 21, 1991, a letter was sent

from Region X's Regional Administrator

to the Administrator of the Division of

Environmental Quality of Idaho's

Department of Health and Welfare

explaining the procedure EPA intended

to use in addressing any State failure to

submit PM-10 SIP's for the initial

moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas

by the statutory deadline. Additionally,

on September 9, 1991, the Chief of EPA's

Region X Air and Radiation Branch sent

a letter to the Acting Chief of the Bureau

of Air Quality of Idaho's Department of

Health and Welfare, further explaining

the procedure. On December 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 of November 15, 1991 for the

Pinehurst, Pocatello, and Sandpoint

moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas.

Illinois

On August 16, 1991, the EPA received

revisions to the Illinois SIP for the

McCook, Lake Calumet, and Granite

City moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas. In that submittal, the State

requested parallel processing of the

draft rules. The submittal for these PM19907

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

10 nonattanment areas was reviewed

for completeness and, on October 3,

1991, EPA denied the request for parallel

processing because certain required

components were absent or provided

insufficient detail. On October 9, 1991,

EPA received additional draft proposed

rules from the fflinois Division of Air

Pollution Control for the Granite City

moderate PM-10 nonattainment area.

On October 1, 1991, a letter was sent

from Region V's Air and Radiation

Division Director to the Manager of the

Illinois Division of Air Pollution control.

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. Illinois

did not submit a complete SIP revision

for the McCook, Lake Calmiet, and

Granite City moderate PM-10

nonattainment areas in response to the

October 10, 1991 letter. Therefore, on

December 17, 191, EPA made a finding,

pursant to sectLions 110(k) and 179(a) of

the Act that the August16 1961 and the

October 9.1991 submittals were

incomplete and. therefore, linois failed

to submit a required complete PM-10

SIP for the McCook. Lake Calument, and

Granite City PM-10 nonattainmnt

areas.

Indiana

On October 8, 1991, a letter was sent

from Region V's Air and Radiation

Division Director to Indiana's Acting

Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air

Management, explaining the general

procedure EPA intended to follow in

addressing any State failure to submit

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) of the Act,

that Indiana had failed to submit a SIP

to meet the statutory deadline of

November 15,1991 for the Lake County

and Vermillion County moderate PM-10

nonattainment areas.

Michigan

On October 1, 1991. a letter was sent

from Region V's Air and Radiation

Division Director to the Director of

Michigan's Division of Air Quality.

Department of Natural 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, EPA received

revisions to the Michigan SIP for the

Wayne County PM-10 nonattainment

area. The EPA reviewed the submittal

for completeness pursuant to section

110(k)(1) of the amended Act and found

that the submittal did not contain many

of the required elements, but rather

consisted primarily of a commitment to

adopt the required elements. The EPA

does not believe that this submittal is

appropriate for a conditional approval

under section 110(k)(4). Therefore, on

December 17, 1991, EPA sent a letter to

the State of Michigan finding, pursuant

to sections 110(k) and 179(a), that

Michigan failed to submit a required

complete PM-10 SIP for the Wayne

County moderate PM-10 nonattainment

area.

Montana

On November 1.1991. a letter was

sent from Region VIII's Regional

Administrator to Montana'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 by finding, pursuant to section

179(a)(1) of the amended Act. that

Montana had failed to submit a SIP to

meet the statutory deadline of

November 15,1991 for the 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 the Director

of Pennsylvanla's Bureau of Air Quality

Control 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

amended Act. that Pennsylvania had

failed to submit a SIP to meet the

statutory deadline of November 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 and Waste

Management Division Director to the

Chairman of Puerto Rico's

Environmental Quality Board 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 SIP to meet the statutory

deadline of November 15, 1991 for the

Guaynabo moderate PM-10

nonattainment area.

IV. Conclusion

The EPA has made findings under

section 179(a)(1) of the Act that the

States listed In Table A failed to submit

a plan, plan element, or a complete plan

as required under section 189(a)(2) and

110(k) of the Act.

Authority- 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 7410(m), 7502,

7509(a), 7500(b). 713. 7513a(a). and 7601.

Dated: May 4.1992.

William G. Rosenberg,

Assistan t Administrator for Air and

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 of concern

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,'

Graite City.

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 in todae 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 and classillcations for each of the Initial

PM-I m<deraft nonattaient are. ' The W loe benideries for the "Paul Sow

Douglas planing area" are listed In the November

6, 1991 Fed Rera l e t noce under Coche

County (see 56 FR 56715). For PI-10 SIP prepara- tion and ubmal pu t e 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 full legal boundares for this area of concern are Msted in fie Novembar 6, 1991 Federal Registw note under Cook Cunty as tem a, Lyon@ Township (ee 56 FR 56753). 4 Th1 ful legal boundaries for tmis arm concern are ited in tho November k+ ~9l Federal Rege- ter notice under Cook County as item b ( se 56 FR

56753). ' The ful legal boundaries for this area of concern are listed in the 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 1992
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 90 / Friday, May 8, 1992 / Notices

[ER-FRL-4131-51

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared April 20, 1992 Through April

24, 1992 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, 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/23R Parallel

to existing Runway 14/32 and

connecting to Runways 5R/23L and 5L/

23R, Airport Layout Plan, Approval,

Funding and Section 404 Permit, 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 of vegetation, wetland

avoidance or mitigation, preservation of

hardwood or forested areas, and

impacts of hazardous waste sites.

ERP No. D-GSA-B81006-MA Rating

EC2, New United States Courthouse in

Boston, Construction and Operation,

Site Selection, Fan Pier in the Fort 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 404 Permit, 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 System Program,

Launching of nonnuclear payloads from

the Kauai Test Facility at the Pacific

Missile Test Facility, Island of Kauai, I.

Summary: EPA expressed a lack of

objection to the proposed project and

encouraged the Department of Defense

to implement pollution prevention

measures for proposed and ongoing

activities at the test facility.

Final EISs

ERP No. 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 of data 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 of Permit to Drill (APD).

ERP No. F-AFS--J60008-WY

Teton Village Federal Tract/Diamond

L Ranch Land Exchange, Special Use

Permits, Bridger-Teton National Forest,

Teton County, WY.

Summary: EPA has no objections to

the preferred alternative.

ERP No. 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).

ERP No. F-FR C-CO5144-N

Mount Hope Pumped Storage

Hydroelectric Project, Construction,

Operation and Maintenance, License

Section 404 Permit, Morris County, NJ.

Summary: EPA believes that

implementation of the applicants'

proposal with FERC staffrecommendations supplemental

mitigation measures adequately

addresses EPAs's concerns. EPA

recommends that the license be

conditioned to include all of the

mitigation measures recommended by

FERC staff.

ERP No. F-UAF-K1048-CA

George Air Force Base (AFB) Disposal

and Reuse, Implementation, San

Bernardino, CA.

Summary: EPA objected to this

documents' continued lack of specificity

regarding cumulative impacts and

potential mitigation measures. EPA

recommended that the Record of

Decision commit to supplement NEPA

documentation to focus on the

environmental issues related to the

actual proposed reuse, including

conformance with environmental

regulations.

Dated: May 5, 1992.

Widliam D. Dickerson,

Deputy Director. Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 92-10845 Filed 5-7-92; 8:45 am]

WILUNG CODE 6560-50-M

[ER-FRL-41

Environmental Impact Statements;

Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

260-5076 OR (202] 260-5076. Availability

of Environmental Impact Statements

Filed April 27, 1992 Through May 01,

1992 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 920140, FINAL EIS, AFS, MT,

Upper Ruby Cattle and Horse Allotment

Management Plan, Centennial Divide

Road No. 100 Reconstruction and

management Area Designation for

portions of the Ruby River,

Implementation, Beaverhead National

Forest, Sheridan, Due: June 08, 1992,

Contact: Mark Petroni (406) 842-5432.

19909 19909

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 19909 1992
Federal 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 the west 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 of Winchester 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.

EIS No. 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.

EIS No. 920148, FINAL EIS, ICC, OH,

Indiana and Ohio Railroad Line,

Construction and Operation extending

from the northern 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.

EIS No. 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.

EIS No. 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 of Sales Adoption, Leasing,

Offshore Coastal Counties of AL, AK,

CA. DE, FL, GA, LA, MD, NJ, NY, NC,

OR, RI, SC, TX, VA and WA, 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 to Jamboree Road in

Newport Beach City, Funding and

Section 404 Permit, Orange County, CA,

Due: June 08, 1992, Contact: James J.

Bednar (916] save1310.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 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,

San Francisco 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,

Deputy Director, Officer of Federa Activities.

[FR Doc. 92-10844 Filed 5-7-92; 8:45 aml

BILIJNG CODE 65W60-My

[OPP-4206BA; FRL-4061-91

Missouri Plan for Certification of

Commercial and Private Applicators of

Restricted Use Pesticides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval of amended

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 of Restricted Use

Pesticides. EPA hereby announces final

approval of this amended Plan.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the amended

Missouri Plan are available foc review

at the following locations during normal

business hours:

1. Division of Plant Industries, Missouri

Department of Agriculture, 1616

Missouri Boulevard, Jefferson City.

MO 65101.

2. Toxics and Pesticides Branch, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, KS 60101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

David Ramsey, (314) 636-5223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of December 24, 1901

(56 FR 66632), EPA announced its intent

to approve the Missouri Plan for

Certification of Commercial and Private

Applicators of Restricted 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 of Restricted Use Pesticides.

Date& April 28 1992.

Morris Kay,

Regional Administrator Region VII.

[FR Doc. 92-10819 Filed 5-7-92; 8:45 am]

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), the Environmental

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.

Cook Fort 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