10306 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It was the

intent of FHWA to re-evaluate the Final

Environmental Impact Statement for

that portion of the South Lawrence

Trafficway project from U.S. 59 east to

K–10. FHWA wanted to consider the

effects of the proposed trafficway on the

spiritual sites, cultural issues, and

academic programs at the Haskell

Indian Nations University. FHWA

prepared and circulated a Draft

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement and received many

comments. FHWA was in the process of

evaluating these comments when

Douglas County and the Kansas

Department of Transportation decided

not to use Federal-aid Highway funds

for the project. Therefore, FHWA is no

longer the lead Federal agency for this

project and is discontinuing the

Supplemental Environmental document

process.

The Record of Decision dated June 5,

1990, is now valid only for that portion

of the Trafficway from the western

terminus to U.S. 59.

Issued on: February 27, 1997.

David R. Geiger,

Division Administrator, Kansas Division,

Federal Highway Administration, Topeka,

Kansas.

[FR Doc. 97–5531 Filed 3–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

Environmental Impact Statement;

Orange, Seminole, and Volusia

Counties, FL

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

will be prepared for a proposed highway

project in Orange County, Seminole

County, and Volusia County, Florida.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Mark D. Bartlett, Program

Operations Engineer, Federal Highway

Administration, 227 N. Bronough Street,

Room 2015, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

Telephone: (904) 942–9598.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description of Project

The FHWA, in consultation with the

Florida Department of Transportation,

will prepare an EIS for a proposal to

improve Interstate 4 (I–4) in Orange

County, Seminole County, and Volusia

County, Florida. The project limits are

from just west of the State Road 528

(Bee Line Expressway) Interchange in

Orange County to just east of the State

Road 472 Interchange in Volusia

County, a distance of approximately 69

km (43 miles). The project is commonly

referred to as the I–4 Project

Development and Environmental

(PD&E) Study—Section 2. The proposed

improvement will involve widening the

segment of I–4 to six general use lanes

plus two high occupancy vehicle lanes.

In addition, the project will evaluate the

need for interchange modifications.

Improvements to the corridor are

considered necessary to provide for the

existing and projected travel demand.

There are three independent studies

which are being performed concurrently

with the I–4 PD&E Study—Section 2.

The I–4 PD&E Study—Section 1

involves preparation of an

Environmental Assessment for

improvements on I–4 from County Road

532 in Osceola County, Florida to State

Road 528 in Orange County, Florida.

The I–4 PD&E Study—Section 3

involves preparation of a Environmental

Assessment for improvements on I–4

from State Road 472 to I–95 in Volusia

County, Florida. The Central Florida

Light Rail Transit System Study

involves preparation of an EIS for Light

Rail Transit improvements in Osceola,

Orange, and Seminole Counties, Florida.

Consideration of the cumulative effects

of these actions, as well as other past,

present and reasonable foreseeable

future actions, will be included in the

I–4 PD&E Study—Section 2.

Need for Project

I–4 is considered to be an integral part

of Central Florida’s transportation

system. The Interstate carries the

greatest number of people and vehicles

of any transportation facility in the

region and serves many of the area’s

primary activity centers. I–4 was

originally designed to serve long

distance travelers, however, the

highway has evolved to one which

serves many shorter trips.

Central Florida has experienced

tremendous growth in the past two

decades. A significant amount of this

growth is occurring within close

proximity to I–4. In recent years,

congestion on I–4 has extended well

beyond normal peak hours and major

accidents have closed I–4, subsequently

resulting in traffic congestion

throughout the metropolitan area.

Congestion and delays on I–4 and the

parallel arterial highways are now

considered to be the major

transportation problem facing the

region. Travel conditions in Central

Florida are expected to continue to

deteriorate due to the continuing trend

of increased growth in population and

tourism.

The design concepts and scope of the

I–4 improvements were developed as

part of the I–4 Major Investment Study

(MIS). The MIS was performed in

conjunction with the I–4 Multi-Modal

Master Plan (I–4 MMMP) and included

evaluations of a full range of reasonable

alternatives and transportation modes.

The specific design concept and scope

recommendations identified in the MIS

which are pertinent to the I–4 PD&E

Study—Section 2 include:

• Six general use lanes plus two high

occupancy lanes within the limits of the

Section 2 Study,

• Reserved right-of-way for a rail

envelope within Volusia County,

• Light rail transit from the city of

Sanford to the South, extending beyond

the southern limits of the Section 2

study,

• Express bus service between

Volusia County and the Orlando

metropolitan area.

The need for improvements to I–4 is

recognized by local and regional plans.

The MIS has been approved by the

Orlando Urban Area Metropolitan

Planning Organization (MPO) and the

Volusia County MPO. The project is also

included in the Orlando Urban Area and

Volusia County year 2020 Long Range

Transportation Plans. Local government

comprehensive plans support mobility

enhancements to I–4.

Alternative

Alternatives under consideration

include: (1) ‘‘No Action’’ which

involves no change to transportation

facilities in the corridor beyond projects

already committed; (2) the design

concept recommended in the I–4 MIS

and I–4 MMMP which consists of

widening the segment of I–4 to six

general use lanes plus two high

occupancy vehicle lanes, and evaluating

the need for interchange modifications;

and (3) design concept refinements to

the recommended I–4 MMMP

alternative. The design concept

refinements will involve consideration

of geometric adjustments which

maximize use of the existing

infrastructure, reduce project costs, and

avoid or minimize environmental

impacts.

Probable Effects

FHWA and local joint lead agencies

will evaluate in the EIS all significant

environmental impacts including

analysis of socio-economic, natural, and

physical impacts for each of the

alternatives. Analysis of socio-economic

impacts will include the evaluation of

land use and neighborhood impacts,

park/recreation area impacts, historic/

archaeological impacts, and visual and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 44 / Thursday, March 6, 1997 / Notices 10307

aesthetic impacts. Natural impact

analysis will include impacts to

Outstanding Florida Waters and Wild

and Scenic Rivers, aquatic preserves,

wetlands, and threatened or endangered

species. In addition, within the study

limits, I–4 crosses the St. John’s River

which is a navigable waterway.

Consequently, navigation impacts will

be evaluated as part of the natural

impact analysis. Physical impact

analysis will include evaluating impacts

to noise, air quality, water quality,

floodplain, potentially contaminated

sites, and coastal zone. The

environmental evaluation will consider

both short-term and long-term impacts

associated with the alternatives.

Measures to mitigate any significant

adverse impacts will also be considered.

Environmental issues raised from

responses to the Advanced Notification

Letter include neighborhood protection,

aesthetics, bicycle facilities, recreational

greenways, alternative modes of

transportation, lake protection,

hydrology and stormwater management,

cultural features, wildlife corridors, and

rare habitat and listed species.

Scoping

Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies, and to private organizations

and citizens who have expressed

interest in this proposal. Interested

parties may request project information

by contacting Mr. Harold Webb, Florida

Department of Transportation, District

Five, 719 South Woodland Boulevard,

Florida 32720 or by calling him at (904)

943-5554. A series of public meetings

will be held in Orange, Seminole, and

Volusia Counties between August 1997

and December 1998. In addition, public

hearings will be held in Orange,

Seminole, and Volusia Counties. Public

notice will be given of the time and

place of the meetings and hearings. The

Draft EIS will be made available for

public and agency review and comment.

A formal scoping meeting will be held

at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 15, 1997

and Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at the

Eastmonte Park Recreation & Civic

Center located at 830 Magnolia Drive,

Altamonte Springs, Florida.

To ensure that the full range of issues

related to the proposed action are

addressed and all significant issues

identified, comments and suggestions

are invited from all interested parties.

Comments or questions concerning this

proposed action and the EIS should be

directed to the FHWA at the address

provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,

Planning and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding inter-governmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Issued on February 27, 1997.

J.R. Skinner,

Division Administrator, Tallahassee.

[FR Doc. 97–5530 Filed 3–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. P–97–2W; Notice 1]

Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities

Petition for Waiver; Northern Eclipse,

Inc.

Northern Eclipse, Inc. (NE) has

petitioned the Research and Special

Programs Administration (RSPA) for a

waiver from compliance with 49 CFR

storage tank impounding system.

Section 193.2155(c) requires a Class 1

impounding system whenever an LNG

storage tank is located within 20,000

feet from the nearest runway serving

large aircraft. The petition applies to the

Northern Eclipse’s proposed LNG

storage facility at Fairbanks, Alaska.

The petitioner’s rationale for the

waiver from compliance rests on the

following reasons:

1. Fairbanks does not currently have

natural gas service, and given the

distance to gas fields and the size of the

market, petitioner believes that LNG is

the only feasible way to provide natural

gas service in the community.

2. Fairbanks is a small town by a

lower-48 states standards, however, due

to international air transport and

reliance of Alaskans on air travel,

Fairbanks has an international airport

(FIA) with a 11,050 foot long runway. In

addition, Fairbanks has a similar

runway for a U.S. military base (Fort

Wainwright), and other smaller runways

in the area. The 20,000 foot restriction

requirement eliminates any reasonable

site in Fairbanks for an LNG storage

tank and it would not be economically

feasible to build an impounding system

which would withstand a direct impact

from a 747, in order to provide gas

service to the Fairbanks community.

3. NE does not propose to locate its

storage tank in the approach/departure

corridor for heavy aircraft. The areas

under consideration are approximately

two miles to the side of the FIA runway.

4. NE proposes the use of a shop

fabricated, heavy outer wall storage tank

of less than 70,000 gallon capacity, built

to National Aeronautical and Space

Administration specifications, and

likely to survive even a direct impact

from small aircraft.

5. Similar LNG storage tanks and

dispensing facilities are routinely

allowed at airports without

impoundment as they are not subject to

Part 193 requirements, but they pose

precisely the same risk in the event of

a collision, and due to their location at

the airport pose a much greater risk of

impact from an aircraft. To support this

fact, NE provided pictures of an above

ground NFPA 59A LNG storage tank at

the Dallas/Fort Worth airport.

6. Part 193 contains special provisions

for LNG tanks with less than a 70,000

gallon capacity. However, Section

193.2155(c) fails to reflect the vastly

different risks posed by different sized

LNG storage tanks. A small LNG tank

like that proposed by NE poses no

significant risk, and certainly no more

than any other similar small energy

storage tank, such as a propane tank or

a non-Part 193 LNG tank.

7. During the December 9, 1996,

meeting between NE and OPS on this

issue, NE was informed that the origin

of the distance of 20,000 feet from the

airport was taken from the Federal

Aviation Administration’s (FAA)

Regulations under 14 CFR part 77,

which define a critical area surrounding

a large airport. According to NE, only

§ 77.13(a)(2)(i) of 14 CFR part 77,

addresses 20,000 ft. restriction, which

exists where there are runways of over

3,200 feet in length, and that section

refers only to the heights of structures.

NE believes that the FAA may be

concerned with the height of the

structure rather than the contents.

Because of the unusual circumstances

described above at NE’s proposed LNG

facility, relatively low risk to the public

safety due to a smaller tank, and the

operators’s use of a shop fabricated

heavy outer wall built to more stringent

standards than those specified under

part 193, RSPA believes that granting a

waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR

193.2155(c) would not be inconsistent

with pipeline safety, nor would it lessen

public safety in this case. The operator

must comply with all other

requirements of part 193 including Class

2 impounding system for the storage

tank. Therefore, RSPA proposes to grant

the waiver.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on the proposed waiver by

submitting in duplicate such data,

views, or arguments as they may desire.

Comments should identify the docket

number and the RSPA rulemaking

number. Comments should be addressed

to the Docket Facility, U.S. Department

Of Transportation, plaza 401, 400