Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 61285-61286 [05-21102]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Notices FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sella M. Burchette, U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team, MS 101, Building 18, Edison, NJ 08837, 732– 321–6726, or by e-mail at burchette.sella@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number SFUND–2005– 0007, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Superfund Docket is (202) 566–0276. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http:// www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA’s policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA’s Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to www.epa.gov./ edocket. Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those State VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:13 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 208001 and local employees engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response in the 27 States that do not have Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) approved State plans. Title: EPA Worker Protection Standard for Hazardous Waste Operation and Emergency Response, OMB Control # 2050–0105, EPA ICR # 1426.07, Expiration 12/31/05. This is a request for renewal of a currently approved collection. Abstract: Section 126(f) of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires EPA to set worker protection standards for State and local employees engaged in hazardous waste operations and emergency response in the 27 States that do not have Occupational Safety and Health Administration approved State plans. The EPA coverage, required to be identical to the OSHA standards, extends to three categories of employees: those engaged in clean-ups at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, including corrective actions at Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and recovery Act (RCRA); employees working at routine hazardous waste operations at RCRA TSD facilities, and employees involved in emergency response operations without regard to location. This ICR renews existing mandatory record keeping collection of ongoing activities including monitoring of any potential employee exposure at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, maintaining records of employee training, refresher training, medical exams and reviewing emergency response plans. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 61285 use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: The annual recordkeeping burden for this collection will remain unchanged from previous estimates and is estimated to average 10.46 hours per site or event. The estimated number of respondents is approximated at 100 RCRA TSD facilities or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites: 23,900 State and local police departments, fire departments or hazardous materials teams. The estimated total burden hours on respondents: 255,427. The frequency of collection: continuous maintenance of records. Burden means to total time, effort, and financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Remit comments regarding these matters, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the address listed above. Dated: October 17, 2005. Charles H. Sutfin, Deputy Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. [FR Doc. 05–21096 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6668–6] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared 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 E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 61286 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Notices 202–564–7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16815). Draft EISs EIS No. 20050198, ERP No. D–AFS– L65485–WA, Growden Dam Sherman Creek Restoration Project, and Forest Plan Amendment #28, Implementation, Colville National Forest, Ferry County, WA. Summary: EPA had concerns about potential impacts to wetlands and recommended that additional mitigation be developed. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050292, ERP No. D–USA– K11038–HI, Makua Military Reservation (MMR) Project, Proposed Military Training Activities, 25th Infantry Division (Light) and U.S. Army, HI. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the introduction of additional weaponsrelated contaminants to soil and water, existing pollutant migration. EPA recommended the Army take advantage of pollution prevention opportunities and preventing further contaminant migration by removing priority sources of contamination and controlling runon/runoff from contaminated areas. Rating EC1. EIS No. 20050295, ERP No. D–AFS– K65288–CA, Bald Mountain Project, Proposes to Harvest Trees Using Group and Individual Trees Selection Methods, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas and Butte Counties, CA. Summary: EPA expressed concerns with the limited scope of the cumulative impacts analysis and the lack of specific information on monitoring, project actions, funding, and existing conditions. EPA recommended rapid implementation of road improvements, staggered scheduling of projects and additional information on the above informational issues. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050339, ERP No. D–AFS– J65450–SD, Deerfield Project Area, Proposes to Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, Mystic Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, Pennington County, South Dakota. Summary: EPA expressed concern about (1) unmitigated and nonquantified soil erosion, runoff, and sediment losses; (2) potential water quality impacts from timber harvest and roads; (3) wildlife impacts to sensitive species; and (4) targeted harvest of older VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:13 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 208001 ponderosa pines important to sensitive wildlife. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050346, ERP No. D–AFS– K02012–NV, White Pine & GrantQuinn Oil and Gas Leasing Project, Exploration and Development, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger District, White Pine, Nye and Lincoln Counties, NV. Summary: EPA expressed concern about impacts to water quality and habitat. EPA requested appropriate lease stipulations to protect these resources be included in the ROD. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050349, ERP No. DB–COE– E36167–FL, Central and Southern Florida Project, Tamiami Trail Modifications, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, Authorized Flow of Water from WCA–3B and the L–29 Canal North of the Tamiami Trail, Dade County, FL. Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project. Rating LO. Final EISs EIS No. 20050261, ERP No. F–IBR– K39090–CA, Cental Valley Project Long-Term Water Service Contract Renewals—American River Division, Proposes to Renew Long-Term Water Service Contracts, Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado Counties, CA. Summary: EPA continued to have concerns regarding the environmental impacts of potential increased water diversions from the American River on water quality, fisheries, aquatic ecosystems, and overall CVP operations and cumulative impacts. EIS No. 20050343, ERP No. F–BLM– J67031–ND, West Mine Area, Freedom Mine, Federal Coal Lease Application, Mercer County, ND. Summary: EPA expressed continued concern about the need to provide additional mitigation to compensate for the loss of fens and peatland wetlands. EIS No. 20050363, ERP No. F–NPS– E61076–00, Low Country Gullah Culture Special Resource Study, Gullah Culture Preservation and Protection Analysis to Consider the Suitability and Feasibility for Inclusion in the National Park Service System, SC, NC, GA, and FL. Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed action. Dated: October 18, 2005. Ken Mittelholtz, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. 05–21102 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6668–5] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–7167 or http://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements. Filed October 10, 2005 through October 14, 2005. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 20050429, Final EIS, BLM, UT, Castle Peak and Eightmile Flat Oil and Gas Expansion Project, Expansion of Crude Oil and Natural Gas Development and Production Programs, Right-of-Way Grant, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, UT, Wait Period Ends: 11/21/2005, Contact: Jean Nitschke-Sinclear 435– 781–4437. EIS No. 20050430, Final EIS, COE, PA, The Town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, Pennsylvania Flood Damage Reduction Project, Implementation, Integrated Feasibility Report, Susquhanna River and Fishing Creek, Town of Bloomsburg, Columbia County, PA, Wait Period Ends: 11/21/ 2005, Contact: Jeff Trulick 410–962– 6715. EIS No. 20050431, Final EIS, FHW, NE, South Omaha Veterans Memorial Bridge Improvements, Across the Missouri River for Highway US–275 between the Cities of Omaha, Nebraska and Council Bluffs, Iowa, NPDES and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, NE and IA, Wait Period Ends: 11/21/2005, Contact: Edward Kosola 402–437–5973. EIS No. 20050432, Draft Supplement, FHW, GA, U.S. 411 Connector, From U.S. 411/GA–20 Interchange with U.S. 41 to U.S. 11 Interchange with I– 75, Updated Information, Funding and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Bartow County, GA, Comment Period Ends: 12/05/2005, Contact: Robert Callan 404–562–3630. EIS No. 20050433, Draft EIS, FHW, WI, U.S. Highway 12, Improvement from U.S. 12/WI–26 North Fort Atkinson Interchange to Whitewater Bypass, Funding, Rock and Jefferson Counties, WI, Comment Period Ends: 12/14/ 2005, Contact: Johnny Gerbitz 608– 829–7500. EIS No. 20050434, Final EIS, FHW, AR, Springdale Northern Bypass Project, U.S. Highway 412 Construction, Additional Information, Designation of a Preferred Alternative, Funding E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61285-61286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21102]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6668-6]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared 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

[[Page 61286]]

202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft 
environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 
1, 2005 (70 FR 16815).

Draft EISs

EIS No. 20050198, ERP No. D-AFS-L65485-WA, Growden Dam Sherman Creek 
Restoration Project, and Forest Plan Amendment 28, 
Implementation, Colville National Forest, Ferry County, WA.

    Summary: EPA had concerns about potential impacts to wetlands and 
recommended that additional mitigation be developed.
    Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20050292, ERP No. D-USA-K11038-HI, Makua Military Reservation 
(MMR) Project, Proposed Military Training Activities, 25th Infantry 
Division (Light) and U.S. Army, HI.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the 
introduction of additional weapons-related contaminants to soil and 
water, existing pollutant migration. EPA recommended the Army take 
advantage of pollution prevention opportunities and preventing further 
contaminant migration by removing priority sources of contamination and 
controlling run-on/runoff from contaminated areas.
    Rating EC1.

EIS No. 20050295, ERP No. D-AFS-K65288-CA, Bald Mountain Project, 
Proposes to Harvest Trees Using Group and Individual Trees Selection 
Methods, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas 
and Butte Counties, CA.

    Summary: EPA expressed concerns with the limited scope of the 
cumulative impacts analysis and the lack of specific information on 
monitoring, project actions, funding, and existing conditions. EPA 
recommended rapid implementation of road improvements, staggered 
scheduling of projects and additional information on the above 
informational issues.
    Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20050339, ERP No. D-AFS-J65450-SD, Deerfield Project Area, 
Proposes to Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, Mystic 
Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, Pennington County, South 
Dakota.

    Summary: EPA expressed concern about (1) unmitigated and 
nonquantified soil erosion, runoff, and sediment losses; (2) potential 
water quality impacts from timber harvest and roads; (3) wildlife 
impacts to sensitive species; and (4) targeted harvest of older 
ponderosa pines important to sensitive wildlife.
    Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20050346, ERP No. D-AFS-K02012-NV, White Pine & Grant-Quinn Oil 
and Gas Leasing Project, Exploration and Development, Humboldt-Toiyabe 
National Forest, Ely Ranger District, White Pine, Nye and Lincoln 
Counties, NV.

    Summary: EPA expressed concern about impacts to water quality and 
habitat. EPA requested appropriate lease stipulations to protect these 
resources be included in the ROD.
    Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20050349, ERP No. DB-COE-E36167-FL, Central and Southern 
Florida Project, Tamiami Trail Modifications, Modified Water Deliveries 
to Everglades National Park, Authorized Flow of Water from WCA-3B and 
the L-29 Canal North of the Tamiami Trail, Dade County, FL.

    Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project. Rating LO.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20050261, ERP No. F-IBR-K39090-CA, Cental Valley Project Long-
Term Water Service Contract Renewals--American River Division, Proposes 
to Renew Long-Term Water Service Contracts, Sacramento, Placer and El 
Dorado Counties, CA.

    Summary: EPA continued to have concerns regarding the environmental 
impacts of potential increased water diversions from the American River 
on water quality, fisheries, aquatic ecosystems, and overall CVP 
operations and cumulative impacts.

EIS No. 20050343, ERP No. F-BLM-J67031-ND, West Mine Area, Freedom 
Mine, Federal Coal Lease Application, Mercer County, ND.

    Summary: EPA expressed continued concern about the need to provide 
additional mitigation to compensate for the loss of fens and peatland 
wetlands.

EIS No. 20050363, ERP No. F-NPS-E61076-00, Low Country Gullah Culture 
Special Resource Study, Gullah Culture Preservation and Protection 
Analysis to Consider the Suitability and Feasibility for Inclusion in 
the National Park Service System, SC, NC, GA, and FL.

    Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed action.

    Dated: October 18, 2005.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 05-21102 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P