17786 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Notices

Branch, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

MA 02203, Telephone: (617) 565–3619.

Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe

Drinking Water Act as amended, 42 U.S.C.

300f et seq., and 40 CFR 142.10 of the

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations.

Dated: March 24, 1995.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8614 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[ER–FRL–4721–9]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared March 6, 1995 through March

10, 1995 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.

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 that 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.

EU—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.

EO—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,

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–J03022–WY Rating

EC2, Greater Wamsutter Area II Natural

Gas Development Project, Approvals

and Permits Issuance, Carbon and

Sweetwater Counties, WY.

SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental

concerns regarding the plugging

program and possible ground water

degradation. EPA requested additional

information on these issues, as well as,

a discussion to reduce the projected

disturbance of 5 acres (per well) pad.

ERP No. D–NPS–E65048–TN Rating

EC2, Foothills Parkway Section 8D,

Construction, between Wear Valley

Road (US 321) and Gatlinburg Pigeon

Forge Spur (US 441/321), Right-of-Way

and COE Section 404 Permits, Great

Smoky Mountain National Park, Blount,

Sevier and Cocke Counties, TN.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concern regarding

potential acid drainage and requested

that the final EIS discuss possible

secondary or backup mitigation plans

should the proposed strategies fail. ERP

No. D–USA–K11058–CA Rating EC2,

San Onofre Area Sewage Effluent

Compliance Project, Cease and Desist

Orders, Camp Pendleton Marine Corps

Base, San Diego and Orange Counties,

CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

impacts to wetlands, biological

resources and water quality. Additional

information is requested for the project

description and its alternatives analysis.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–FTA–L54003–OR, New

Eugene Transfer Station, Site Selection

and Construction, Funding, McDonald

Site or IHOP Site, Lane County, OR.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS has

been completed and no environmental

concerns with the project were

identified. No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–8609 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[ER-FRL–4721–8]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

260–5076 OR (202) 260–5075. Weekly

receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements Filed March 27, 1995

Through March 31, 1995 Pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 950116, DRAFT EIS, USA, CA,

Hamilton Army Airfield Disposal and