Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices 19931

3 71 FERC at 61,915.

4See, e.g., CNG Transmission Company, 74 FERC

¶ 61,073 (1996); Paiute Pipeline Company, 74 FERC

¶ 61,049 (1996); Northwest Pipeline Company, 73

FERC ¶ 61,353 (1995), reh’g denied, 75 FERC ¶

61,008 (1996); El Paso Natural Gas Company, 73

FERC ¶ 61,352 (1995); Southern Natural Gas

Company, 73 FERC ¶ 61,085 (1995); Texas Eastern

Transmission Corporation, 73 FERC ¶ 61,012

(1995).

determine whether mitigation of rate

impact is needed and how the

mitigation will be done. Some argued

that no mitigation is needed when the

benefits are proportionate to the rate

impact, while others argued mitigation

should apply in every instance when

the rate impact exceeds 5%.

Finally, the parties raised questions

about the procedures for addressing rate

design questions in certificate

proceedings. They requested

clarification as to the role of shippers in

the certificate proceedings, such as

whether the shippers will be able to

present evidence opposing the

pipelines’ proposed rate design. They

also raised questions about how the

declaratory order will be applied in

subsequent rate cases under section 4 of

the Natural Gas Act when pipelines

propose rolled-in pricing.

Discussion

The purpose of the Policy Statement

was to provide the industry with

guidance on the criteria the Commission

would apply when evaluating rate

design for new pipeline construction

and to establish the procedures for

making this analysis. In the Policy

Statement, the Commission

contemplated that the resolution of

pricing methodology would take place

in individual proceedings based on the

facts and circumstances of the project at

issue.3 The Commission finds that the

issues raised in the rehearing requests

generally are not susceptible to a generic

resolution, but need to be considered in

the context of a specific filing. Indeed,

since issuing the Policy Statement, the

Commission has addressed some of

these issues in individual cases.4

Accordingly, the Commission declines

to consider the issues raised in the

requests for rehearing and/or

clarification in this docket, but will

consider such issues and arguments in

the specific cases in which they apply.

By the Commission.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–11047 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5469–1]

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 April 22, 1996

through April 26, 1996 pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 960190, DRAFT EIS, FHW,

WI, Burlington Bypass State Trunk

Highway Project, Construction, from

WI–36, WI–11 and WI–83, Funding and

COE Section 404 Permit, City of

Burlington, Racine and Walworth

Counties, WI, Due: June 24, 1996,

Contact: Richard Madrzak (608) 829–

7510.

EIS No. 960191, FINAL EIS, BLM, CA,

Clear Creek Management Area, Land

and Resource Management Plan

Amendment, Implementation, San

Benito and Fresno Counties, CA, Due:

June 03, 1996, Contact: Meg Pearson

(408) 637–8183.

EIS No. 960192, FINAL EIS, FAA, NY,

Syracuse Hancock International Airport,

Land Acquisition and Construction of

Runway 10 L–28R, Funding and Airport

Layout Plan Approval, Onondaga

County, NY, Due: June 03, 1996,

Contact: Frank Squeglia (718) 553–3325.

EIS No. 960193, DRAFT EIS, COE, NJ,

Absecon Island Interim Feasibility

Study, Storm Damage Reduction,

Brigantic Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet,

Atlantic County, NJ, Due: June 25, 1996,

Contact: Ltc. Robert Magnifico (215)

656–6555.

EIS No. 960194, DRAFT EIS, FHW,

FL, Port of Miami Tunnel and Access

Improvements, I–395 via MacArthur

Causeway Bridge, Dade County, FL,

Due: June 17, 1996, Contact: J. R.

Skinner (904) 942–9582.

EIS No. 960195, FINAL

SUPPLEMENT, COE, CA, Richmond

Harbor Deep Draft Navigation

Improvements, Updated and Additional

Information, to Improve Navigation

Efficiency into the Potrero, San

Francisco Bay, Contra Costa County,

CA, Due: June 03, 1996, Contact: Linda

Ngim (415) 744–3341.

EIS No. 960196, DRAFT EIS, USN,

United States Navy Shipboard Solid

Waste Disposal, Implementation,

MARPOL Special Areas: Designation

Baltic Sea, North Sea, Wilder Caribbean,

Antarctic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea,

Black Sea and Red Sea, Gulf Regions:

Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, Due:

June 17, 1996, Contact: Robert K.

Ostermueller (610) 595–0759.

EIS No. 960197, FINAL

SUPPLEMENT, IBR, NM, CO, AnimasLa Plata Project, Additional Information

concerning Agricultural, Municipal and

Industrial Water Supplies, Animas and

La Plata Rivers, San Juan County, NM

and La Plata and Montezuma Counties,

CO, Due: June 03, 1996, Contact: Ken

Beck (970) 385–6558.

EIS No. 960198, FINAL EIS, DOE,

NM, Medical Isotopes Production

Project (MIPP), Establishment and

Production of a Continuous Supply of

Molybdenum-99 and Related Isotopes,

Bernalillo County, NM, Due: June 03,

1996, Contact: Wade Carroll (301) 903–

7731.

EIS No. 960199, FINAL EIS, USN,

WA, Disposal of Decommissioned,

Defueled Cruiser, Ohio Class and Los

Angeles Class Naval Reactor Plants, Site

Selection, U.S. Department of Energy’s

Hanford Site, Benton, Franklin and

Grant Counties or Puget Sound Naval

Shipyard, Bremerton, WA, Due: June 03,

1996, Contact: John Gordon (360) 476–

7111.

EIS No. 960200, FINAL EIS, DOE,

WA, Adoption—Disposal of

Decommissioned, Defueled Cruiser,

Ohio Class and Los Angeles Class Naval

Reactor Plants, Site Selection, U.S.

Department of Energy’s Hanford Site,

Benton, Franklin and Grant Counties or

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Bremerton, WA, Due: June 03, 1996,

Contact: Paul F.X. Dunigan (509) 376–

6667.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),

has adopted the U.S. Department of the

Navy’s FEIS #960199, filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency on

04–26–96. DOE is a cooperating agency

on this project. Recirculation of the

document is not necessary under

Section 1506.3(c) of the Council on

Environmental Quality Regulations.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 960007, DRAFT EIS, GSA,

DC, Central and West Heating Plants

(CHP/WHP) Construction and

Operation, Air Quality Improvement

Project, District Heating System (DHS),

City of Washington, DC, Due: May 24,

1996, Contact: Frank L. Thomas (202)

708–5334. Published FR 01–19–96—

Review Period Extended.

EIS No. 960115, DRAFT EIS, FHW, RI,

Rhode Island Northeast Corridor Freight

Rail Improvement Project, Major

Investment Study, Implementation,

Boston Switch in Central Falls to the

Quonset Point/Davisville Industrial Park

in North Kingtown, Funding, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permits, Providence

County, RI, Due: May 13, 1996, Contact:

K. Robert Sikora (401) 528–4541.
19932 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

Published FR 03–15–96—Review Period

Extended.

EIS No. 960159, FINAL EIS, FAA, WI,

Dane County Regional Airport, Air

Carrier Runway 3–21 Construction and

Operation and Associated Actions,

Airport Layout Plan Approval and

Funding, Dane County, WI, Due: June

03, 1996, Contact: John Dougherty (612)

725–4362. Published FR 04–12–96—

Review Period Extended.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 96–11131 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[ER–FRL–5469–2]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared April 15, 1996 Through April

19, 1996 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.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in FR

dated April 05, 1996 (61 FR 15251).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–COE–D39036–DE Rating

EC2, Delaware Coast from Cape

Henlopen to Fenwick Island Feasbility

Study, Rehoboth Beach and Dewey

Beach Project, Storm Damage

Reduction, Sussex County, DE.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding the

need for updated information on the

biological recovery of the borrow areas

and the criteria used in selection of the

preferred plan of beach restoration for

storm damage.

ERP No. D–COE–E36174–FL Rating

EC2, Programmatic EIS—Florida’s

Everglades, Stormwater Treatment

Areas Construction Project, NPDES and

COE Section 404 Permits,

Implementation, Lake Okeechobee,

Palm Beach and Hendry Counties, FL.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over the

performance capabilities of the

proposed stormwater treatment areas,

and requested additional information

concerning impacts to wetlands and

water quality.

ERP No. D–COE–E40764–00 Rating

LO/EC2 Fort Campbell Rail Connector,

Construction between the GovernmentOwned Line Railroad and CSX Line,

Hopkinsville and Clarkville, Christian

Co., KY and Montgomery and Stewart

Counties, TN.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

Alternative 3, but expressed concerns

with the other alternatives presented in

the draft EIS. In particular, EPA was

concerned how their implementation

would affect wetland/wildlife habitat,

and requested additional information.

ERP No. D–COE–G39029–LA Rating

EC2, Programmatic EIS—Marsh

Management Project, Hydrologic

Manipulation, COE Section 10 and 404

Permit Issuance, Coastal Wetland of

Louisiana a part of the Coastal Wetlands

Planning, Protection and Restoration

Act (CWPPRA) River Basins, LA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over the

proposal and requested additional

information. Information needed in the

Final EIS include: 1) the development

and full consideration of the document’s

objectives, 2) clarification in the

development of future scenarios of

marsh management projects, and 3)

consideration of cumulative and

secondary impacts.

ERP No. D–FRC–C02000–PR Rating

EC2, Eco Ele’ctrica Liquefied Natural

Gas (LNG) Import Terminal and Electric

Cogeneration Project Construction and

Operation, Permits and Approvals,

Guayanilla Bay, PR.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding the

project’s potential impacts to water

quality, aquatic resources, public safety,

and existing site contamination. EPA

also requested that additional

information be provided in the final EIS

to address these issues.

ERP No. D–FRC–E05047–GA Rating

EC2, North Georgia Hydroelectric

Project, (FERC. No. 2354–018) Issuance

of Relicensing, Savannah River Basin,

Tallulah, Tugalo and Chattooga Rivers,

GA and SC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the

proposed project, and requested

additional information.

ERP No. D–IBR–K39039–NV Rating

EC2, Southern Nevada Water Authority

Treatment and Transmission Facility,

Construction and Operation, Issuance of

Permits, Right-of-Way Grants and

Modification of existing Water Delivery/

Service Contracts, Clark County, NV.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

impacts of wastwater return flows on

water quality in Las Vegas Bay and Lake

Mead and on wetlands habitat in Las

Vegas Wash. EPA requested additional

consideration of water conservation

measures.

ERP No. D–SCS–K36115–HI Rating

EC2, Upcountry Maui Watershed,

Implementation, To Address

Agricultural Water Shortage, COE

Section 404 Permit, Makawao District,

Island of Maui, Maui County, HI.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over potential

impacts to wildlife and riparian habitat

due to construction of new reservoirs to

provide new irrigation. EPA

recommended that the FEIS include a

more complete description of the

environmental impacts of the action,

mitigation measures and alternatives.

ERP No. DS–COE–C36062–00 Rating

EC2, Passaic River Basin Flood Control

Plan, Implementation, Updated

Information to extend tunnel outlet from

Upstream Terminus to Newark Bay,

Passaic, Bergen, Morris, Essex and

Hudson Counties, NJ and Rockland and

Orange Counties, NY.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding the

feasibility of the proposed wetland

mitigation, construction related water

quality impacts, as well as local

economic impacts. EPA has requested

that additional information be provided

in the final supplemental EIS to address

these issues.

FINAL EISs

ERP No. FS–COE–G32051–TX

Galveston Bay Area Navigation

Improvements, Houston Ship and

Galveston Channels, Additional

Information, Funding and

Implementation, Galveston and Harris

Counties, TX.

Summary: EPA had no objections to

the recommended plan.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 96–11132 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5466–8]

Science Advisory Board; Notice of

Public Meetings

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that various

committees and subcommittees of the

Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet

on the dates and times described below.

All times noted are Eastern Time. All

meetings are open to the public. Due to

limited space, seating at meetings will

be on a first-come basis. For further

information concerning specific