9186 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices

EPA’s standards and test procedures for

model years 1996 through 1998.

California states in its October 16,

1996 letter, referencing both its August

21, 1995 letter and recent developments,

that it has determined that its amended

standards are, in the aggregate, at least

as protective of the public health and

welfare as the applicable federal

standards. Further, California,

referencing its August 21, 1995 waiver

request letter, states that it continues to

need separate standards to meet

compelling and extraordinary

conditions. Finally, California,

referencing its August 21, 1995 letter

and its Manufacturers Advisory

Correspondence (MAC) ι96–05, states

that its amendments are consistent with

section 202(a) of the Act. Section 202(a)

requires that the procedures provide

sufficient lead time to permit the

development and application of

requisite technology, giving appropriate

consideration to the cost of compliance

within such period. In addition, EPA

has held that section 202(a) prohibits

the procedures from imposing

inconsistent certification requirements

such that manufacturers would be

unable to demonstrate compliance with

both the California and Federal

requirements with the same test vehicle

and using a single test sequence.

California’s request will be considered

according to the procedures for a waiver

determination, thus an opportunity for a

public hearing is being provided. Any

party wishing to present testimony at

the hearing and/or to submit written

comments should address the following

issues:

(1) Whether California’s

determination that its standards are at

least as protective of public health and

welfare as applicable Federal standards

is arbitrary and capricious;

(2) Whether California needs separate

standards to meet compelling and

extraordinary conditions; and,

(3) Whether California’s standards

and accompanying enforcement

procedures are consistent with section

202(a) of the Act.

II. Procedures for Public Participation

Any party desiring to make an oral

statement on the record should submit

ten (10) copies, if feasible, of its

proposed testimony and other relevant

material to Mr. Dickinson of EPA’s

Vehicles Programs and Compliance

Division at the address listed above not

later than March 24, 1997. In addition,

the party should submit 25 copies, if

feasible, of the planned statement to the

presiding officer at the time of the

hearing.

In recognition that a public hearing is

designed to give interested parties an

opportunity to participate in this

proceeding, there are no adverse parties

as such. Statements by participants will

not be subject to cross-examination by

other participants without special

approval by the presiding officer. The

presiding officer is authorized to strike

from the record statements which he or

she deems irrelevant or repetitious and

to impose reasonable limits on the

duration of the statement of any

participant.

If a hearing is held, the Agency will

make a verbatim record of the

proceedings. Interested parties may

arrange with the reporter at the hearing

to obtain a copy of the transcript at their

own expense. Regardless of whether a

public hearing is held, EPA will keep

the record open until April 30, 1997.

Upon expiration of the comment period,

the Administrator will render a decision

on CARB’s request based on the record

of the public hearing, if any, relevant

written submissions and other

information which she deems pertinent.

Persons with comments containing

proprietary information must

distinguish such information from other

comments to the greatest possible extent

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business

Information’’ (CBI).

If a person making comments wants

EPA to base its waiver decision in part

on a submission labeled as CBI, then a

nonconfidential version of the

document which summarizes the key

data or information should be submitted

for the public docket. To ensure that

proprietary information is not

inadvertently placed in the docket,

submissions containing such

information should be sent directly to

the contact person listed above and not

to the public docket. Information

covered by a claim of confidentiality

will be disclosed by EPA only to the

extent allowed and by the procedures

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim

of confidentiality accompanies the

submission when it is received by EPA,

it may be made available to the public

without further notice to the person

making comments.

Dated: February 24, 1997.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–5034 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[ER-FRL–5477–8]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 OR (202) 564–7153.

Weekly receipt of Environmental

Impact Statements Filed February 17,

1997 Through February 21, 1997

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 970060, Final EIS, AFS, ID,

Priest Lake Ranger District Noxious

Weed Control Project,

Implementation, Idaho Panhandle

National Forest, Bonner County, ID

and Pend Oreille County, WA, Due:

March 31, 1997, Contact: Tim Layser

(208) 443–2512.

EIS No. 970061, Draft EIS, AFS, SD,

Anchor Hill Mine Expansion Project

in Gilt Edge Mine, Plan-of-Operations,

Black Hills National Forest, SD, Due:

April 14, 1997, Contact: Don Murray

(605) 578–2744.

EIS No. 970062, Draft EIS, DOI, UT,

Uintah Unit Replacement Project,

Implementation, Central Utah Water

Conservancy District, Approval of

Permits, Duchesne and Uintah

Counties, UT, Due: April 29, 1997,

Contact: R. Terry Holzworth (801)

226–7100.

EIS No. 970063, Draft EIS, COE, CA,

Upper Guadalupe River Flood Control

Project, Construction, Santa Clara

Valley Water District, Santa Clara

County, CA, Due: April 14, 1997,

Contact: Robert F. Smith (415) 977–

8450.

EIS No. 970064, Final EIS, AFS, WA,

Taneum/Peaches Road Access Project,

Issuance of Two Temporary Permits

to Plum Creek for Road Construction,

Wenatchee National Forest, Cle Elum

Ranger District, Kittitas County, WA,

Due: March 31, 1997, Contact:

Douglas Campbell (509) 674–4411.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 960576, Final EIS, AFS, WA,

Huckleberry Land Exchange

Consolidate Ownership and Enhance

Future Conservation and

Management, Federal Land and Non

Federal Land, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie

National Forest, Skagit, Snohomish,

King, Pierce, Kittitas and Lewis

Counties, WA, Contact: Doug Schrenk

(206) 888–1421. Review Period was

erroneously extended to –21–97 in

Published FR—02–07–97. Review

Period Official ended on 1–21–97.

EIS No. 960586, Draft EIS, AFS, MT,

Basin Creek Drainage, Salvage Timber

and Watershed Rehabilitation,

Kootenai National Forest, Three

Rivers Ranger District, Lincoln
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Notices 9187

County, MT, Due: March 24, 1997,

Contact: Jeanne Higgins (406) 295–

4693. Published FR—08–23–96—

Review Period Reopened.

Dated: February 25, 1997

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97–5074 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[ER–FRL–5477–9]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared February 10, 1997 Through

February 14, 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 5, 1996 (61 FR 15251).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–BLM–K67040–CA Rating

EC2, Imperial Open-Pit Heap Leach

Precious Metal Mine Project, Plan of

Operation, Right-of-Way Approval,

Conditional-Use-Permit and

Reclamation Program Approval,

Imperial County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns based on

potential impacts to surface waters and

recommendations for improved

facilities design, and requested

additional information regarding

avoidance and mitigation of impacts to

waters of the U.S., reduction of PM10

emissions, and facilities design.

ERP No. D–COE–C36074–NJ Rating

EC2, Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet

Feasbility Study, New Jersey Shore

Protection Study, Storm Damage

Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration,

with in the Communities of Avalon,

Stone Harbor and North Wildwood,

Cape May County, NJ.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over the

alternatives analysis, potential impacts

to benthic communities and water

quality from beach nourishment

activities, and the potential impacts

associated with this and other erosion/

storm damage protection projects in

New Jersey. Additional information is

requested in the final EIS to address

these issues.

ERP No. D–COE–G39031–LA Rating

LO, Mississippi River—Gulf Outlet

(MRGO) New Lock and Connecting

Channels Replacement and

Construction for Connection to the

Mississippi River, Implementation,

Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, LA.

Summary: EPA has no objection to the

selection of the Tentatively Selected

Plan provided that the described

mitigation measures are implemented.

ERP No. D–FHW–L40201–WA Rating

EC2, US 101 Highway AberdeenHoquian Corridor Project,

Improvements, US Coast Guard and

COE Section 404 Permit, Grays Harbor

County, WA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns based on

unavoidable impacts to wetlands and

potential impacts to other waters of the

US. Additional information is needed to

clarify design specifications resulting

from certain flood frequency data, and

to ensure that proper stormwater

management practices will be

implemented to protect receiving-water

quality appropriately.

ERP No. D–FTA–D54038–MD Rating

EC2, Metrorail Extension—Addison

Road Station to the Largo Town Center,

Transportation Improvements, Prince

George’s County, MD.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns that

environmental issues have not been

adequately addressed. The alternatives

analysis does not adequately compare

alternatives. Secondary and cumulative

impacts were not fully addressed as

well. Information regarding

environmental justices issues was not

clearly documented.

ERP No. D–IBR–K29000–CA Rating

EO2, Interim South Delta Program

(ISDP), Construction and Operation,

Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta,

Implementation, COE Section 404

Permit, Alameda, Contra Costa and San

Joaquin Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections and is

concerned that all of the alternatives

analyzed could have significant adverse

impacts on fish and aquatic resources

and that, generally, the proposed project

does not advance that long-term

objectives of ecosystem restoration as

expressed through the CALFED LongTerm Bay-Delta Program. EPA asked

that alternatives be redesigned and

evaluated in the context of the LongTerm Program.

ERP No. D–NAS–E12005–00 Rating

EC2, Engine Technology Support,

Implementation, With Emphases on

Liquid Oxygen and Kerosene, Advanced

Space Transportation Program, Test

Sites: Marshall Space Flight Center

(MSFC) in Huntsville, AL; Stennis

Space Center (SSC) near Bay St. Louis,

MS and Phillips Laboratory, Edwards

Air Force Base, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

wetlands, groundwater and other

unresolved issues; however, these can

be addressed by the requested

additional information.

ERP No. DS–FHW–K40099–HI Rating

EC2, Makai Boulevard Concept/Nimitz

Highway Improvements, Updated

Information, Construction from Keehi

Interchange to Pier 16 (AWA Street) in

the Kalihi-Palama District, Funding, US

Coast Guard and COE Section 404

Permits, City of Honolulu and Honolulu

County, HI

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the project

and asked FHA to provide more

information regarding the sole source

aquifer, erosion and stormwater impacts

to water quality, and the alternative

analysis.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–BLM–K67038–NV Ruby

Hill Gold Mining Operations Project,

Implementation, Battle Mountain

District, Plan of Operations and COE

Section 404 Permit, Eureka County, NV.

Summary: EPA’s concerns regarding

the project’s air emissions have been

addressed in the FEIS, however

mitigation measures remain vague. EPA

supports BLM’s decision to add partial

backfilling to the preferred alternative

and EPA urged BLM to reduce project

disturbance by 120 acres.

ERP No. F–FHW–E40757–AL Eastern

Pleasure Island Hurricane Evacuation

Route Construction, AL–182 in Orange

Beach to CR–95 near CR–20 (on the

mainland) and CR–95 near CR–20 to I–

10, Funding and US Coast Guard Bridge

and COE Section 404 Permits Issuance,

Baldwin County, AL.

Summary: EPA’s review found that

impacts to wetlands were of concern

and that additional wetland mitigation

and agency coordination was needed.

ERP No. F–FHW–E40767–FL Tampa

Interstate Project, Funding, I–275 to just

north of Cypress Street and I–275 from

the Howard Frankland Bridge/Kennedy

Boulevard ramps north to Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and I–4 from

I–275, Hillsborough County, FL.

Summary: EPA’s review found that

noise impacts to urban residents were of

concern and that the affected

communities and housing developments

should be allowed to participate in

noise abatement plans.

ERP No. F–FRC–L05206–WA

Snoqualmie Falls Hydroelectric Project