51856 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices

Other Facilities, COE Section 10 and

404 Permits, U.S. Coast Guard Permit,

Contra Costa County, CA, Due:

November 17, 1997, Contact: Craig

Vassel (415) 977–8546.

EIS No. 970375, FINAL EIS, IBR, AZ,

Programmatic EIS—Pima-Maricopa

Irrigation Project, Construction and

Operation, Maricopa and Pinal

Counties, AZ, Due: November 3, 1997,

Contact: Bruce D. Ellis (602) 395–

5685.

EIS No. 970376, FINAL EIS, NAS, CA,

WA, UT, X–33 Advanced Technology

Demonstrator Vehicle Program, Final

Design, Construction and Testing,

Implementation, Approvals and

Permits Issuance, CA, UT and WA,

Due: November 3, 1997, Contact:

Kenneth M. Kumor (202) 358–1112.

EIS No. 970377, FINAL EIS, AFS, MT,

Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan,

Implementation, Oil and Gas Leasing

Analysis, Upper Missouri River Basin,

several counties, MT, Due: November

3, 1997, Contact: Robin Strathy (406)

791–7726.

Dated: September 30, 1997.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–26329 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5484–9]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared September 1, 1997 Through

September 5, 1997 pursuant to the

Environmental Review Process (ERP),

under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act

and Section 102(2)(c) of the National

Environmental Policy Act as amended.

Requests for copies of EPA comments

can be directed to the Office of Federal

Activities at (202) 564–7167. An

explanation of the ratings assigned to

draft environmental impact statements

(EISs) was published in FR dated April

11, 1997 (62 FR 16154).

DRAFT EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–J61098–MT Rating

EC2, Lost Trail Ski Area Expansion

Project, Implementation, New Master

Development Plan, Bitterroot National

Forest, Sula Ranger District, Ravalli

County, MT.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about potential

increased wastewater pollutant loadings

to area ground water, and lack of

analysis and disclosure of potential

indirect effects of induced development.

Additional information is needed to

fully assess and mitigate all potential

environmental impacts of the

management actions.

ERP No. D–MMS–L02026–AK Rating

LO, Beaufort Sea Planning Area Outer

Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease

Sale 170 (1997) Lease Offering, Offshore

Marine, Beaufort Sea Coastal Plain,

North Slope Borough of Alaska.

Summary: EPA does not foresee

having any environmental objections to

the proposed project.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–BLM–J60018–UT Price

Coalbed Methane Gas Resources Project,

Construction, Federal and Non-Federal

Lands, Permit-to-Drill Application,

Right-of-Way Grants and COE Section

404 Permits, Carbon and Emery

Counties, UT.

Summary: The Final EIS addresses

most of EPA’s air quality concerns on

the proposed project and EPA still

recommend a cumulative effects

analysis in the Price area.

ERP No. F–BLM–J60019–WY Cave

Gulch-Bullfrog-Waltman Natural Gas

Development Project, Implementation,

Platte River Resource Area, Natrona

County, WY.

Summary: While the Final EIS

addresses most concerns expressed in

our comment letter on the draft EIS.

EPA still maintains environmental

concerns about the protectiveness of the

proposed plans for ground water and

surface water.

ERP No. F–DOE–L36109–00

Watershed Management Program

Standards and Guidelines,

Implementation, ID, NV, MT, OR, WA

and WY.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS has

been completed and the project found to

be satisfactory. No formal comment

letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–UAF–G11031–TX

Programmatic EIS—Kelly Air Force Base

(AFB), Disposal and Reuse,

Implementation, San Antonio County,

TX.

Summary: EPA has reviewed the lead

agency’s responses to EPA comments

offered on the draft statement. EPA

finds the FEIS has reasonably addressed

our concerns and therefore we have no

further comments.

ERP No. F–UAF–K11080–CA

Programmatic EIS—McClellan Air Force

Base (AFB) Disposal and Reuse

Including Rezoning of the Main Base,

Implementation, Federal Permits,

Licenses or Entitlements, Sacramento

County, CA.

Summary: EPA was generally satisfied

with the additional information

provided, but continues to express

concerns about groundwater overdraft.

ERP No. F–UMC–K11067–00 Yuma

Training Range Complex Management,

Operation and Development, Marine

Corps Air Station Yuma, Goldwater

Range, Yuma and La Paz Cos., AZ and

Chocolate Mountain Range, Imperial

and Riverside Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA commented that the

Final EIS addresses the concerns that

were expressed in the Draft EIS.

ERP No. F–UMC–K24018–CA Sewage

Effluent Compliance Project,

Implementation, Lower Santa Margarita

Basin, Marine Corps Base Camp

Pendleton, San Diego County, CA.

Summary: EPA commented that while

additional alternatives were not

developed or advanced in the Final EIS,

the additional information regarding

Clean Water Act Section 404

requirements that EPA requested was

provided.

ERP No. F–USA–K11073–AZ Western

Army National Guard Aviation Training

Site Expansion Project, Designation of

an Expanded Tactical Flight Training

Area (TFTA), Development or Use of a

Helicopter Gunnery Range and

Construction and Operation of various

Facilities on the Silver Bell Army

Heliport (SBAH), Maricopa, Pima and

Pinal Counties, AZ.

Summary: EPA commented regarding

analysis of water, noise, biological

resources and NEPA issues that the

Army has addressed our concerns.

ERP No. FR–USA–G11029–AR

Disposal of Chemical Agents and

Munitions Stored at Pine Bluff Arsenal,

Site-Specific Impacts Associated with

On-Site Disposal, Construction and

Operation and Approval of Permits,

Jefferson County, AR.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the selection of the preferred alternative

described in the Revised Final EIS.

Other: ERP No. LD–AFS–J65268–CO

Rating EO2, North Fork of the South

Platte and the South Platte Rivers, Wild

and Scenic River Study, To Determine

their Suitability for Inclusion into the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers

System, Pike and San Isabel National

Forests, Comache and Cimarron

National Grasslands, Douglas, Jefferson,

Park and Teller Counties, CO.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections with the first

agency preferred alternative (local

community protection) because the

DLEIS did not include how this would

be accomplished or what the impacts

would be. EPA expressed environmental

concerns with the second agency

preferred alternative (congressional
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 1997 / Notices 51857

recommendation) because it did not

recommend equal protection to the

Outstandingly Remarkable Values of

several river segments within the study

area and did not fully consider the

broader implications of designation on

other, nearby wilderness and roadless

areas.

Dated: September 30, 1997.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–26350 Filed 10–2–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPPTS–00226; FRL–5749–6]

Forum on State and Tribal Toxics

Action (FOSTTA) Projects; Open

Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Three projects of the Forum

on State and Tribal Toxics Action

(FOSTTA) will hold meetings open to

the public at the time and place listed

below in this notice. The Lead Project

will not be meeting this session. The

public is encouraged to attend the

proceedings as observers. However, in

the interest of time and efficiency, the

meeting is structured to provide

maximum opportunity for state, tribal,

and EPA invited participants to discuss

items on the predetermined agenda. At

the discretion of the chair of the project,

an effort will be made to accommodate

participation by observers attending the

proceedings.

DATES: The three projects will meet

October 20, 1997, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

with a plenary session on Cutting Edge

Initiatives in Pollution Prevention from

8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and on October 21,

1997, from 8 a.m. to noon.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

The Embassy Suites Hotel, 1900

Diagonal Road, Alexandria, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darlene Harrod, Designated Federal

Official (DFO), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics (7408),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460,

Telephone: (202) 260–6904, e-mail:

harrod.darlene@epamail.epa.gov. Any

observer wishing to speak should advise

the DFO at the telephone number or email address listed above no later than

4 p.m. on October 16, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FOSTTA,

a group of state and tribal toxics

environmental managers, is intended to

foster the exchange of toxics-related

program and enforcement information

among the states/tribes and between the

states/tribes and EPA’s Office of

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances (OPPTS) and Office of

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

(OECA). FOSTTA currently consists of

the Coordinating Committee and four

issue-specific projects. The projects are

the: (1) Toxics Release Inventory

Project; Pollution Prevention Project; (3)

Chemical Management Project; and (4)

Lead (Pb) Project.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection.

Dated: September 27, 1997.

Susan B. Hazen,

Director, Environmental Assistance Division,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 97–26323 Filed 10–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5902–5]

Proposed Settlement Under Section

122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of

1980, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed

administrative settlement and

opportunity for comment.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to enter

into an administrative settlement to

resolve claims under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA).

Notice is being published to inform the

public of the proposed settlement and of

the opportunity to comment. The

settlement is intended to recover all past

response costs incurred by EPA at the

Spruce Street Site in Anchorage, Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be provided on

or before November 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Docket Clerk, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, ORC–158, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101,

and should refer to the Spruce Street

Site, Anchorage, Alaska, U.S. EPA

Docket No. 10–96–0090–CERCLA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward J. Kowalski, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Regional

Counsel, ORC–158, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206) 553–

6695; Gina Belt, U.S. Department of

Justice, Environmental & Natural

Resources Division, 801 B Street, #504,

Anchorage, Alaska, 99501–3657, (907)

271–3456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

accordance with section 122(i)(1) of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i)(1), notice is

hereby given of a proposed

administrative settlement, Agreement

for Payment of Response Costs

(Agreement), concerning the Spruce

Street Site (Site) located in Anchorage,

Alaska. Pursuant to section 104 of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604, EPA

undertook response actions at the Site,

which was an inactive salvage yard of

about two acres. The Agreement

resolves EPA’s claims regarding liability

under section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42

U.S.C. 9607(a), for response costs

incurred by EPA in connection with the

Site. Subject to review by the public

pursuant to this Notice, the Agreement

has been approved by the United States

Department of Justice. The following are

the parties who have executed the

proposed Agreement: the Municipality

of Anchorage, The State of Alaska, the

Defense Logistics Agency, the Federal

Aviation Administration; the United

States Air Force, and the United States

Army. EPA is entering into this

Agreement under the authority of

section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

9622(h)(1).

EPA initiated a time critical removal

action at the Site in October 1991 to

stabilize the wastes located on-site.

Hazardous wastes on-site included

paints, electrical equipment containing

PCBs, soils contaminated with heavy

metals, soils contaminated with PCBs,

chemicals, acids, and caustics. Due to

inclement weather, removal activities by

EPA were suspended and resumed in

June 1992, when EPA sorted on-site

debris and prepared hazardous

materials for removal. In January 1993,

hazardous materials including paints,

electrical equipment containing PCBs,

some contaminated soils and oils were

transported off-site. Two nearby

residences were supplied with bottled

water because of elevated levels of

arsenic in their wells. These two

residences have since been hooked up

to the city water supply. To restrict

access to the Site, the Alaska

Department of Environmental

Conservation erected a fence around the

Site and posted hazardous substance

warning signs. In performing these

response actions, EPA and the State of

Alaska incurred response costs at the

Site. The Agreement requires, inter alia,

that the Municipality of Anchorage