Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices 19047

Sandy Farmer, USEPA ICR #0794.07,

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Information Policy Branch

(2316), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460

and

Timothy Hunt, OMB #2070–0046, Office

of Management and Budget, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC

20503.

Dated: April 7, 1995.

Richard Westlund,

Acting Director, Regulatory Information

Division.

[FR Doc. 95–9249 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[ER-FRL–4722–2]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared March 13, 1995 through March

17, 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.

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,

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-FHW-D40275–PA Rating

EC2, Kittanning By-Pass/PA–6028,

Section 015 Extension of the Allegheny

Valley Expressway, existing Allegheny

Valley Expressway to the Traffic Route

28/66 and Traffic Route 85 Intersection,

Funding and COE Section 404 and EPA

NPDES Permits Issuance, Armstrong

County, PA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns for potential

impacts to wetlands, terrestrial habitat,

and residences. EPA found alternative C

Prime to be the environmentally

preferable alternative because of its

minimization of impacts to wetland

resources.

ERP No. D-FRC-D29000–VA Rating

EC2, Gaston and Roanoke Rapids Project

(FERC-No. 2009-003), Nonpoint Use of

Project Lands and Water for the City of

Virginia Beach Water Supply Project,

License Issuance, Brunswick County,

VA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the water

demand, as well as potential supply

alternatives and requested additional

information. EPA also requested water

quality modeling of the lower Roanoke

River prior to issuance of the final EIS,

and FERC convene a session of key

parties to develop an appropriate 6–10

year interim withdrawal allocation.

ERP No. D-FRC-K02008–CA Rating

EC2, Mojave Natural Gas Pipeline

Northward Expansion Project,

Construction and Operation, Approvals

and Permits Issuance, San Joaquin

Valley, San Francisco Bay Area and

Sacramento, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over potential

impacts to wetlands, as well as potential

significant emissions during

construction that may not meet Clean

Air Act conformity provisions.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-IBR-J31023–UT Narrows

Multi-Purpose Water Development

Project, Construction and Operation,

Funding, Gooseberry Creek, Manti-La

Sal National Forest, Sanpete County,

UT.

Summary: EPA continued to have

environmental concerns about wetlands

impacts, endangered species and the

limited alternatives analyzed in the EIS.

ERP No. FS-COE-E30032–FL Palm

Beach County Beach Erosion Project,

Updated Information, Shore Protection

Project, Jupiter/Carlin Segment from
19048 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 1995 / Notices

Martin Co., Line to Lake Worth Inlet and

from South Lake Worth Inlet to

Broward, General Design Plan,

Implementation, Martin and Broward

Counties, FL.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding the

long-term consequences of how this

action meshes with other, similar beach

nourishment projects planned for the

county’s shoreline. EPA was

particularly concerned over impacts to

nearshore hardbottom habitat.

Dated: April 11, 1995.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–9289 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[ER-FRL–4722–1]

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 April 03, 1995

Through April 07, 1995 Pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 950123, FINAL EIS, AFS, AK,

Helicopter Glacier Landing Tours,

Implementation, Issuance of SpecialUse-Permits, Tongass National Forest,

Chatham Area, Juneau Ranger District,

Alaska, Due: May 15, 1995, Contact:

John H. Favro (907) 586–8800.

EIS No. 950124, FINAL EIS, FHW, MT,

US 2 Reconstruction, Columbia

Heights to Hungry Horse, Funding,

Land Transfer and COE Section 404

Permit, Flathead County, MT, Due:

June 01, 1995, Contact: Dale Paulson

(406) 449–5310.

EIS No. 950125, DRAFT EIS, AFS, NV,

CA, Heavenly Ski Resort Master Plan,

Improvement, Expansion and

Management, Lake Tahoe Basin

Management Unit, Special-UsePermit, Douglas County, NV and El

Dorado and Alpine Counties, CA,

Due: May 29, 1995, Contact: Virgil

Anderson (916) 573–2600.

EIS No. 950126, DRAFT EIS, FHW, AZ,

Pima Freeway—Loop 101,

Construction, I–17 and Scottsdale

Road, Funding, NPDES and COE

Section 404 Permits, Maricopa

County, AZ, Due: May 30, 1995,

Contact: Ken Davis (602) 379–3646.

EIS No. 950127, DRAFT EIS, FHW, IA,

I–235 Study Corridor, Improvements

access to the Des Moines Central

Business District (CBD) and Westown

Parkway Area, Funding, Des Moines,

Polk County, IA, Due: June 06, 1995,

Contact: H.A. Willard (515) 233–7300.

EIS No. 950128, DRAFT EIS, USN, HI,

Bellows Air Force Station Land Use

and Development Plan,

Implementation, Waimanalo, HI, Due:

May 29, 1995, Contact: Gary Kasaoke

(808) 471–9338.

EIS No. 950129, DRAFT EIS, AFS, ID,

Secesh River Subdivision Access

Roads, Implementation, Special-UsePermit, Idaho County, ID, Due: May

30, 1995, Contact: Linda Fitch (208)

634–0408.

EIS No. 950130, FINAL EIS, FHW, WI,

MN, Stillwater-Houlton

Transportation System, MN-Trunk

Highway-36 and WI-Trunk-Highway64 Improvements, MN-TrunkHighway-36 and Washington CountyState-Aid-Highway-15 to WI-Trunk

Highway-64 near the Croix River

Bridge, Funding, US Coast Guard

Bridge Permit, COE Section 10 and

404 Permits, St. Croix, WI and

Washington County, MN, Due: May

15, 1995, Contact: Cheryl Martin (612)

290–3240.

EIS No. 950131, FINAL EIS, FAA, TX,

Adoption—Chase Field Naval Air

Station Disposal and Reuse

Implementation, as a Civilian Airport

Facility, City of Beeville, Bee County,

TX, Contact: Tami Buch (817) 222–

5681. The US Department of

Transportation’s Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) has adopted

the Department of Defense’s, US Navy

final EIS filed 3–19–93. FAA was a

cooperating Agency for the above

final EIS. Recirculation of the

document is not necessary Under

Section 1506.3(c) of the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations.

EIS No. 950132, DRAFT SUPPLEMENT,

COE, MS, Mississippi River and

Tributaries Flood Control Plan, Big

Sunflower River Maintenance Project,

Yazoo Basin, Sunflower, Washington,

Humphreys, Sharkey and Yazoo

Counties, MS, Due: May 29, 1995,

Contact: Marvin Cannon (601) 631–

5437.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 940512, DRAFT EIS, FHW, PA,

US 220 Transportation Improvements

Project, Bald Eagle Village to

Interstate 80 (I–80), Funding and COE

Section 404 Permit, Blair and Centre

Counties, PA, Due: May 22, 1995,

Contact: Manual A. Mark (717) 782–

3461. Published FR—12–23–94—

Review Period Reopened.

Dated: April 11, 1995.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–9290 Filed 4–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

[FRL–5191–9]

Science Advisory Board; Clean Air Act

Scientific Advisory Committee;

Notification of Public Advisory

Committee Meeting(s); Open Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that the Clean Air

Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

of the Science Advisory Board (SAB)

will meet on May 4–5, 1995 at the

Courtyard Marriott, 2700 Eisenhower

Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314;

telephone (703) 329–2323. The meeting

will begin at 9 a.m. and end no later

than 5 p.m. on both days. This meeting

is open to the public. Due to limited

space, seating will be on a first-come

basis. For further information, please

contact the individuals listed below.

Documents that are the subject of SAB

reviews are normally available from the

originating EPA office and are not

available from the SAB Office.

This meeting of the Clean Air

Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

will focus on reviewing the scientific

and technical adequacy of the agency’s

‘‘Health Assessment Document for

Diesel Emissions’’ (a document from the

Office of Research and Development,

Office of Health and Environmental

Assessment (OHEA), Environmental

Criteria and Assessment Office in

Research, Triangle Park, NC—ECAO).

The specific issues to be addressed

during the CASAC review are as

follows:

1. Does the document accurately

represent the key literature on diesel

emissions?

2. Are the cancer and noncancer

hazard identification and dose-response

assessments scientifically appropriate?

In particular:

(a) Is the application of dosimetry

modeling scientifically sound?

(b) Are the modes of action

appropriately identified and applied to

the health assessment?

(c) Are the qualitative and

quantitative cancer risk estimates

scientifically appropriate?

(d) Is the diesel inhalation reference

concentration (RfC) scientifically

appropriate?