21184 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices

pursuant to §§ 225.25 (b)(17) and (18) of

the Board’s Regulation Y.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, May 3, 1996.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 96–11560 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210–01–F

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT

INVESTMENT BOARD SUNSHINE ACT

MEETING

TIME AND DATE: 8:00 a.m., May 20, 1996.

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room,

1250 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. National Finance Center record keeping.

2. Congressional/agency/participant

liaison.

3. Benefits administration.

4. Investments.

5. Participant communications.

6. Approval of the minutes of the last

meeting.

7. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the

Executive Director.

8. Review of selection criteria for software

vendor.

9. Approval of the update of the FY 1996

budget and FY 1997 estimates.

10. Investment policy review.

11. Status of audit recommendations.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of

External Affairs (202) 942–1640.

Dated: May 6, 1996.

Roger W. Mehle, Executive Director,

Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 96–11710 Filed 5–7–96; 12:29 pm]

BILLING CODE 6760–01–M

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Public Buildings Service

Notice of Intent To Prepare

Environmental Impact Statement for

the Consolidated Law Federal Office

Building, Portland, OR

SUMMARY: The General Services

Administration (GSA) hereby gives

notice it intends to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA), as amended for the

Consolidated Law Federal Office

Building, in Portland, Multnomah

County, Oregon. The EIS would

evaluate the proposed project, other

reasonable alternatives, and the no

action alternative identified during the

scoping process. Scoping would be

accomplished through written

correspondence, through a public

scoping meeting, and through

individual meetings with interested

persons, groups, organizations, and

federal, state, and local agencies.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

scope of alternatives and potential

impacts should be sent to GSA’s

environmental contractor, Herrera

Environmental Consultants, at the

following address: 2200 Sixth Avenue,

Suite 601, Seattle, Washington, 98121.

DATES: Written comments should be

sent to Herrera Environmental

Consultants by May 25, 1996.

Comments will also be accepted at a

public scoping meeting from 4:30 p.m.

to 7:30 p.m. on May 7, 1996 and May

8, 1996 at the location indicated below.

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING: Comments and

suggestions will be solicited at a public

scoping meeting to be held at: Edith

Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building,

1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Donna M. Meyer, Regional

Environmental Program Officer, General

Services Administration, (206) 931–

7675 or Ms. Nona Diediker at Herrera

Environmental Consultants, 2200 Sixth

Avenue, Suite 601, Seattle, Washington,

98121, (206) 441–9080.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

General Services Administration,

assisted by the environmental

contractor, is considering preparation of

a federal NEPA Environmental Impact

Statement on a proposal to design and

construct a new Consolidated Law

Federal Office Building in Portland,

Oregon. The scoping process would

determine the level of effort, the scope

of issues to be addressed in the

environmental document, and identify

the significant issues related to the

proposed project. Scoping will be

conducted consistent with the Council

on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ)

Regulations for Implementing the

Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR

parts 1500–1508). GSA will serve as the

lead agency for the preparation of the

EIS pursuant to Section 1501.5(a) of the

regulations.

Scoping

GSA invites interested individuals,

organizations, and federal, state, and

local agencies to participate in defining

the reasonable alternatives to be

evaluated in the EIS, and in identifying

any significant physical, biological, or

socioeconomic environmental issues

related to the alternatives. Scoping

comments can be made verbally at the

public scoping meeting, or in writing

(see DATES and ADDRESSES section above

for location and time of meeting).

During scoping, comments should focus

on identifying specific impacts to be

evaluated and suggesting alternatives

that minimize adverse impacts while

achieving similar objectives. Comments

may also identify issues which are not

significant or which have been covered

by prior environmental review. Scoping

should be limited to commenting on the

project alternatives. There will be

opportunity to comment on preferences

during the Draft EIS comment review

phase.

Additional Information

A project information newsletter will

be available at the public scoping

meeting or can be obtained by

contacting Nona Diediker at Herrera

Environmental Consultants. The

newsletter will describe in more detail

the proposed project, alternatives, and

the EIS process.

Mailing List

If you wish to be placed on our

mailing list to receive further and future

information as the EIS process develops,

contact Herrera Environmental

Consultants at the address or phone

listed above.

Project Purpose, Historical Background,

and Project Description

The House and Senate Subcommittees

on Treasury, Postal Service, and General

Government have determined a need

exists for a facility to serve as a

detention center for prisoners appearing

before the Federal courts and for the

consolidation of Federal law

enforcement agencies in Portland,

Oregon. The committees have directed

the General Services Administration to

undertake the necessary studies to

address this requirement. Detention

facilities in Portland for federal

prisoners awaiting a trial and sentencing

are limited. Federal law enforcement

officials are forced to move federal

prisoners back and forth from the

federal prison in Sheridan, Oregon and

other county holding facilities in

Oregon and Washington. This situation

often leads to many security and

logistical problems.

The proposal to design and construct

a 350,000 occupiable square foot office,

court and 300-bed facility to consolidate

federal law enforcement agencies and

provide detention capabilities would

aid in alleviating security and logistic

problems by establishing an adjacency

relationship to the new U.S.

Courthouse. Site alternatives are

presently under investigation and a

delineated area has been identified as
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 91 / Thursday, May 9, 1996 / Notices 21185

follows: SW Taylor Street on the north,

SW 1st Avenue on the east, SW

Madison Street on the south, and SW

4th Avenue on the west.

Alternatives

The EIS would consider several action

alternatives and a no action alternative.

The facility would be located adjacent

to the new U.S. Courthouse located at

1030 SW 3rd Avenue. Alternatives to be

considered include:

1. Design and construction on a full

block site bounded by SW Taylor Street

on the north, SW 2nd Avenue on the

east, SW Salmon Street on the south,

and SW 3rd Avenue on the west;

2. Design and construction on a full

block site bounded by SW Taylor Street

on the north, SW 3rd Avenue on the

east, SW Salmon Street on the south,

and SW 4th Avenue on the west;

3. Design and construction on a full

block site bounded by SW Main Street

on the north, SW 1st Avenue on the

east, SW Madison Street on the south,

and SW 2nd Avenue on the west;

4. Acquisition then alternation of a

leased building bounded by SW Taylor

Street on the north, SW 1st Avenue on

the east, SW Madison Street on the

south, and SW 4th Avenue on the west,

and,

5. No action.

Probable Effects

GSA will evaluate physical, biological

and socioeconomic environmental

impacts of the alternatives in the EIS.

Potential impacts include, but are not

limited to, changes in physiography;

impacts to groundwater; changes to

vegetation and wildlife; changes in open

space and visual characteristics; impacts

to air quality and noise, utilities, and

transportation; changes in the social

environment; and impacts to zoning and

historical/cultural resources. The

impacts will be evaluated both for the

construction period and during the

operation of the facility. Measures to

mitigate any significant adverse impacts

will be addressed.

Procedures

The EIS will be prepared based on the

outcome of the scoping phase, A Draft

EIS will be made available for public

and agency comments, with a public

hearing held to receive comments

regarding the Draft EIS. Upon

completion of the public review

process, a Final EIS would be prepared

to address issues raised during the Draft

EIS and the public hearing.

Dated: April 26, 1996.

Richard J. Moen,

Legal Counsel, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 96–11542 Filed 5–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–23–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

[30DAY–10]

Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork

Reduction Act Review

The Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of

information collection requests under

review, in compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35). To request a copy of these

requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance

Office on (404) 639–7090.

The following requests have been

submitted for review since the last

publication date on January 23, 1996.

Proposed Projects

1. Variability of Respiratory Tract

Dust Deposition in Workers—New—

Adverse respiratory health effects in

workers exposed to hazardous airborne

materials can be prevented by reducing

the concentration of the implicated

agents below a threshold level.

However, the actual ‘‘safe’’ work site

concentration is determined by the

airborne particulates that are actually

deposited and retained in the worker’s

respiratory tract. The proportion

deposited is in turn affected by the

volume and flow rates of the worker’s

breathing patterns.

The goals of this investigation are to:

(1) Develop a database of information

related to workers’ ventilatory patterns

during performance of elemental

industrial and commercial job activities,

as well as specific dust-exposed work

activities; (2) define expected variation

in particle size dependent respiratory

tract dust deposition related to

breathing patterns representative of

different job tasks; (3) investigate

residual intersubject variability in

respiratory tract dust deposition with

explanatory variables such as height,

gender, age smoking status, effective

airway diameter, nasal geometry, and

preexisting respiratory tract

abnormalities.

This investigation should improve the

understanding of the actual deposition

of toxic substances in the lungs and

help to validate or modify the existing

models of human aerosol deposition.

Respondents Number of respondents

Number of responses/respondentAverage burden/response

(in hours)

Phase I:

Screening .............................................................................................................................. 13 1 1

Deposition ............................................................................................................................. 13 1 3

Physio Mon:

Screening .............................................................................................................................. 16 1 2

Work tasks ............................................................................................................................ 16 1 4

Phase II:

Screening .............................................................................................................................. 276 1 2

Work tasks ............................................................................................................................ 276 1 4

Phase III:

Screening .............................................................................................................................. 66 1 1

Physiol ................................................................................................................................... 66 1 2

Deposition ............................................................................................................................. 66 1 1

The total annual burden is 2068. Send

comments to Desk Officer, CDC; Human

Resources and Housing Branch, New

Executive Office Building, Room 10235;

Washington, DC 20503.

2. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Back

Belts for the Prevention of Low Back

Injury—New—This study will provide

information concerning the efficacy of a

back supporting belt in preventing first

and recurrent low back injuries. The

research will be conducted with a major

retail merchandise company, using

selected company workers (those with

highest lifting exposures) in selected