Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27647

(UTU–77114), Application for

Learning, Manti-La Sal National

Forest, Ferron-Price Ranges District,

Sanpete and Emery Counties, UT,

Comment Period Ends: July 02, 2001,

Contact: Stan Perks (801) 539–4038.

The US Department of Agriculture

Forest Service and US Department of

Interior Bureau of Land Management

are Joint Lead Agencies for this

project.

EIS No. 010166, Draft EIS, NPS, VA,

Green Spring Colonial National

Historical Park Management Plan,

Implementation, James City County,

VA, Comment Period Ends: July 11,

2001, Contact: Alec Gould (757) 898–

3400.

EIS No. 010167, Draft EIS, AFS, UT,

WY, Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan, Implementation,

several counties, UT and Uinta

County, WY, Comment Period Ends:

September 04, 2001, Contact: Jack

Blackwell (801) 524–3908.

EIS No. 010168, Final EIS, AFS, MT,

Knox-Brooks Timber Sales and Road

Rehabilitation, Implementation, Lola

National Forest, Super Ranger

District, Mineral County, MT, Wait

Period Ends: June 18, 2001, Contact:

Bruce Erickson (406) 822–3957.

EIS No. 010169, Draft EIS, FTA, NC,

Phase I Regional Rail System

Improvements, Durham to Raleigh to

North Raleigh, Implementation,

Durham and Wake Counties, NC,

Comment Period Ends: July 20, 2001,

Contact: Alex McNeil (404) 562–3511.

EIS No. 010170, Final EIS, FHW, CA,

San Francisco—Oakland Bay Bridge,

East Span Seismic Safety Project,

Connection between I–80 Yerba

Buena Island and Oakland, US Coast

Guard Permit and COE Section 404

Permit, San Francisco and Alameda

Counties, CA, Wait Period Ends: June

18, 2001, Contact: C. Glenn Clinton

(916) 498–5020.

EIS No. 010171, Draft EIS, FTA, CA, San

Fernando Valley East-West Transit

Corridor Project, Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT) on former Burbank/ Chandler

Southern Pacific Rail Right-of-Way,

Development and Implementation,

Los Angeles County. CA , Comment

Period Ends : July 03, 2001, Contact:

Ervin Poka (213) 202–3950.

EIS No. 010172, Draft EIS, FHW, MD,

MD–210 (Indian Head Highway)

Multi-Modal Study, MD–210

Improvements between I–95/I–495

(Capitol Beltway) and MD–228

Funding and US COE Section 404

Permit Issuance, Prince George’s

County, MD , Comment Period Ends:

September 23, 2001, Contact: Nelson

Castellanos (410) 962–4342.

EIS No. 010173, Draft EIS, USN, CA,

Point Molate Property Naval Fuel

Depot (NFD) for the Disposal and

Reuse, Implementation, Fleet and

Industrial Supply Center, City of

Richmond, Contra Costa County, CA ,

Comment Period Ends: July 02, 2001,

Contact: Roberta Montana (619) 532–

0942.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 010088, Draft EIS, FHW, NB,

Lincoln South and East Beltways

Project, To Complete a

Circumferential Transportation

System linking I–80 on the north and

U.S.77 on the west, Funding, COE 404

Permit, Lancaster County, NB,

Comment Period Ends: June 15, 2001,

Contact: Edward Kosola (402) 437–

5973. Revision of FR Notice Published

on 03/23/2001: CEQ Review Period

Ending 05/07/2001 has been Extended

to 06/15/2001.

EIS No. 010159, Draft Supplement,

DOE, NV, Geologic Repository for the

Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and

High-Level Radioactive Waste,

Construction, Operation, Monitoring

and Eventually Closing a Geologic

Repository at Yucca Mountain,

Updated and Additional Information,

Nye County, NV , Comment Period

Ends: June 25, 2001, Contact: Jane R.

Summerson (702) 794–1493. Revision

of FR notice published on 05/11/2001:

Correction to Title.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–12570 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6618–2]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared 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.

Summary of Rating Definitions

Environmental Impact of the Action

Lo—Lack of Objections

The EPA review has not identified

any potential environmental impacts

requiring substantive changes to the

proposal. The review may have

disclosed opportunities for application

of mitigation measures that could be

accomplished with no more than minor

changes to the proposal.

EC—Environmental Concerns

The EPA review has identified

environmental impacts the should be

avoided in order to fully protect the

environment. Corrective measures may

require changes to the preferred

alternative or application of mitigation

measures that can reduce the

environmental impact. EPA would like

to work with the lead agency to reduce

these impacts.

EO—Environmental Objections

The EPA review has identified

significant environmental impacts that

must be avoided in order to provide

adequate protection for the

environment. Corrective measures may

require substantial changes to the

preferred alternative or consideration of

some other project alternative

(including the no action alternative or a

new alternative). EPA intends to work

with the lead agency to reduce these

impacts.

EU—Environmentally Unsatisfactory

The EPA review has identified

adverse environmental impacts that are

of sufficient magnitude that they are

unsatisfactory from the standpoint of

public health or welfare or

environmental quality. EPA intends to

work with the lead agency to reduce

these impacts. If the potentially

unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected

at the final EIS stage, this proposal will

be recommended for referral to the CEQ.

Adequacy of the Impact Statement

Category 1—Adequate

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately

sets forth the environmental impact(s) of

the preferred alternative and those of

the alternatives reasonably available to

the project or action. No further analysis

or data collection is necessary, but the

reviewer may suggest the addition of

clarifying language or information.

Category 2—Insufficient Information

The draft EIS does not contain

sufficient information for EPA to fully

assess environmental impacts that

should be avoided in order to fully

protect the environment, or the EPA

reviewer has identified new reasonably

available alternatives that are within the

spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the

draft EIS, which could reduce the

environmental impacts of the action.

The identified additional information,

27648 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

data, analyses, or discussion should be

included in the final EIS.

Category 3—Inadequate

EPA does not believe that the draft

EIS adequately assesses potentially

significant environmental impacts of the

action, or the EPA reviewer has

identified new, reasonably available

alternatives that are outside of the

spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the

draft EIS, which should be analyzed in

order to reduce the potentially

significant environmental impacts. EPA

believes that the identified additional

information, data, analyses, or

discussions are of such a magnitude that

they should have full public review at

a draft stage. EPA does not believe that

the draft EIS is adequate for the

purposes of the NEPA and/or section

309 review, and thus should be formally

revised and made available for public

comment in a supplemental or revised

draft EIS. On the basis of the potential

significant impacts involved, this

proposal could be a candidate for

referral to the CEQ.

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–BLM–J65331–00 Rating E02,

Williams, Questar, Kern River Pipeline

Project, To Approve a Petroleum

Products Pipeline, and one or two

Natural Gas Pipelines and to Amend

Forest Plan, UT, NM and CO.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections with the

narrow range of alternatives, new

construction activity in the Uinta NF

roadless area, potential air impacts to

Arches National Park and the lack of

information disclosed on potentially

connected actions. EPA supports efforts

to reduce environmental impacts by

locating pipelines in existing ROW

corridors, avoid landslide areas and

headwaters for sources of drinking

water, slightly modify the ROW to

project roadless areas and use

directional drilling methods which may

reduce impacts to wetlands and aquatic

life.

ERP No. D–FAA–E51049–KY Rating

EC2, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky

International Airport, Construction and

Operation of a New 8,000-foot Runway

17/35 (Future 18R/36L); 2,000-foot

Extension of Runway 9/27, Funding and

Airport Layout Plan, (ALP) Boone

County, KY.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

about proposed noise mitigation, air

quality analysis, and wetland/stream

mitigation. use of adaptive management

regarding the monitoring of noise

contours is recommended to ensure

accurate footprints once prospective

operations are initiated and when

substantive changes affecting airport

noise occur.

ERP No. D–USA–D11031–MD Rating

EC2, Fort George G. Meade Future

Development and Operations of a New

Administrative and Support Buildings,

Anne Arundel and Howard Counties,

MD.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

regarding potential impacts due to

increased base traffic. EPA encouraged

Fort Meade to make a committed effort

to institute traffic mitigation alternatives

such as flextime, flexiplace and car

pooling programs.

ERP No. DS–FAA–J51009–UT Rating

EC2, Cal Black Memorial Airport

Project, New and Updated Information

for the Replacing of Halls Crossing

Airport, within the boundary of Glen

Canyon National Recreation, Halls

Crossing, San Juan Counties, UT.

Summary: EPA has environmental

concerns with the ongoing noise

impacts especially when combined with

enroute jet aircraft noise, and that

additional information is needed in the

final Supplemental EIS that establishes

a threshold of significance for these

cumulative noise impacts. In addition,

EPA suggests that the connected action

of the proposed BLM land transfer be

analyzed in a revised supplemental EIS

to provide analysis of BLM’s proposed

action for this same airport.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–J65321–MT Mill-KeyWey Project, Proposed Timber

Harvesting, Ecosystem Burning, Road

Construction and Reconstruction,

Implementation, Lolo National Forest,

Superior Ranger District, Mineral

County, MT.

Summary: While the FEIS was largely

responsive to EPA’s comments on the

DEIS, EPA continue to express concerns

about timber harvests on erosive soils,

wetland impacts, use of weed control

chemicals, and the level of monitoring

proposed to identify actual project

impacts.

ERP No. F–NOA–A91066–00 Tilefish

Fishery Management Plan (FMP),

(Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps), To

Prevent Overfishing and to Rebuild the

Resource of Tilefish, Located along the

Atlantic Ocean.

Summary: EPA had environmental

concerns about the proposed regulations

and the sufficiency of the information in

the document. EPA’s concern included

the adequacy of the mitigation measures

and the impacts of trawling on Tilefish

EFH.

ERP No. FS–AFS–L60104–WA

Huckleberry Land Exchange

Consolidate Ownership and Enhance

Future Conservation and Management,

Updated Information, Proposal to

Exchange Land and Mineral Estates,

Federal Land and Non-Federal Land,

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest,

Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce,

Kittitas, and Lewis Counties, WA.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–12569 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6978–7]

Allocation of Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund Monies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The 1996 Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) Amendments established a

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(DWSRF) program and authorized $9.6

billion to be appropriated for the

program through fiscal year 2003.

Congress directed that allotments for

fiscal year 1998 and subsequent years be

distributed among States based on the

results of the most recent Drinking

Water Infrastructure Needs Survey.

In this notice, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing a

revised allocation for DWSRF monies

among States in accordance with the

results from the most recent Drinking

Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (i.e.,

the 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure

Survey) which was released on February

28, 2001. This revised allocation affects

DWSRF program appropriations for

fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

Beginning in fiscal year 1998, EPA

established a formula which allocates

funds to the States based directly on

each State’s proportional share of the

total State need, provided that each

State receives a minimum share of one

percent of the funds available to the

States, as required by the SDWA. EPA

has made the determination that it will

continue to use this method for

allocating DWSRF funds. The findings

from the 1999 Needs Survey will change