[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 17856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9567]



[[Page 17856]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5490-7]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared March 16, 1998 through March 
20, 1998 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 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 environmment, 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-FTA-E40774-FL Rating EC2, Central Florida Light Rail 
Transit System Transportation Improvement to the North/South Corridor 
Project, Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and Minimum Operable 
Segment (MOS), Orange and Seminole Counties, FL.
    Summary: EPA conceptually concurs with the selection of a light 
rail system because of the expected air quality benefits. EPA concerns, 
however, include environmental justice impacts associated with 
Alternative 3, neighborhood travel disruptions, potential impact to 
historic districts, and some urban wetland impacts.
    ERP No. D-NSF-A81164-00 Rating EC2, Amundsen-Scott South Pole 
Station, Proposal to Modernize through Reconstruction and Replacement 
of Key Facilities, Antarctica.
    Summary: EPA believes that since monitoring of ambient air quality 
at the station is not feasible, the EIS should identify measures to be 
carried out on a periodic basis to ensure that air emissions from 
sources at the station continue to be in line with the emission factors 
as specified for such equipment. EPA also, identified a number of 
points which should be clarified in the EIS to better inform the final 
decision regarding the proposed action.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-FHW-D40284-PA, US 202 Section 700 Corridor, Improvements, 
from PA 63 in Montgomeryville to the PA-611 Bypass in Doylestown 
Township, COE Section 404 Permit and Right-of-Way, Montgomery and Bucks 
Counties, PA.
    Summary: EPA continued to express concerns that the proposed 8 mile 
highway will negatively impact water quality of the Neshaminy Creek, a 
tributary to the Delaware River. EPA does not oppose issuance of a 
Section 404 permit for the project provided all appropriate measures 
are taken to mitigate adverse impacts to water quality, wetlands and 
terrestrial ecosystems.

Regulations

    ERP No. PR-AFS-A65164-00, 36 CFR Part 212 Administration of the 
Forest Development Transportation System: Management Regulations 
Revision and Temporary Suspension of Road Construction in Roadless 
Areas; Proposed Rules.
    Summary: EPA supports the Forest Service's effort to revise its 
existing transportation policy and an 18 month road moratorium in 
designated roadless areas. EPA believes this is a good start to 
protecting the environmental and cultural values associated with the 
roadless and low-density roaded areas as well as the other Forest 
Service lands. EPA expects to work closely with the Forest Service as 
it develops its rules to ensure that adverse impacts to water quality 
are avoided or mitigated.

    Dated: April 7, 1998.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 98-9567 Filed 4-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U