Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 65811-65812 [E6-19022]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. Abstract: Certain employees of companies working under contract to EPA require access to TSCA CBI collected under the authority of TSCA in order to perform their official duties. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), which is responsible for maintaining the security of TSCA confidential business information, requires that all individuals desiring access to TSCA CBI obtain and annually renew official clearance to TSCA CBI. As part of the process for obtaining TSCA CBI clearance, OPPT requires certain information about the contracting company and about each contractor employee requesting TSCA CBI clearance, primarily the name, social security number and EPA identification badge number of the employee, the type of TSCA CBI clearance requested and the justification for such clearance, and the signature of the employee to an agreement with respect to access to and use of TSCA CBI. Responses to the collection of information are voluntary, but failure to provide the requested information will prevent a contractor employee from obtaining clearance to TSCA CBI. EPA will observe strict confidentiality precautions with respect to the information collected on individual employees, based on the Privacy Act of 1974, as outlined in the ICR and in the collection instrument. Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.6 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or 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 which have subsequently changed; 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:26 Nov 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: Estimated total number of potential respondents: 28. Frequency of response: On occasion (one time only per individual employee needing TSCA CBI clearance). Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 10. Estimated total annual burden hours: 446 hours. Estimated total annual costs: $20,466. This includes an estimated burden cost of $20,466 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and operational costs. IV. Are There Changes in the Estimates from the Last Approval? There is an increase of 31 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects an increase in the number of contractor employees needing TSCA CBI clearance. This change is an adjustment. V. What is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR? EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 1, 2006. James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E6–19014 Filed 11–8–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6681–1] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65811 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. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the FR dated April 7, 2006 (71 FR 17845). Draft EISs EIS No. 20060366, ERP No. D1–COE– D39028–00, Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Ecosystem Restoration Integrated Feasibility Study, Using Uncontaminated Dredged Material from the Upper Chesapeake Bay Approach Channels to the Port of Baltimore to Restore and Protect Island Habitat in the Middle Portion of Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, MD. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action. Rating LO. EIS No. 20060284, ERP No. D–FHW–E40808–KY, I–66 Somerset to London Project, Construction from the Vicinity of the Northern Bypass (I–66) in Somerset, KY to I–75 between London and Corbin Cities, Pulaski, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Rockcastle and Laurel Counties, KY. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to wetlands, karst features and associated water resources, stream and river crossings, and potential construction-related impacts to the Daniel Boone National Forest. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060356, ERP No. D–COE– F32198–00, Lock and Dam 3 Mississippi River Navigation Safety and Embankments, To Reduce Related Navigation Safety and Embankment Problems, Upper Mississippi River, Goodhue County, MN and Pierce County, WI. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the proposed mitigation for impacts to forested floodplains and water quality, and requested additional information regarding the analysis of cumulative impacts. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060358, ERP No. D–AFS– K39101–CA, Lake Davis Pike Eradication Project, To Eradicate Pike and Re-Establish Trout Fishery in the Tributaries, Special-Use-Permit, Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, CA. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about drinking water impacts, the possible presence of toxic blue-green algae, discharge permit requirements, neutralization options, and the overall effectiveness of the eradication project. Rating EC2. E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM 09NON1 65812 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 2006 / Notices sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES EIS No. 20060368, ERP No. D–NSF– K99036–HI, Advanced Technology Solar Telescope Project, Construction of Site at the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, Haleakala High Altitude Observatory (HO) Site, Island of Maui, HI. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to cultural resources, Native Hawaiians, Haleakala National Park, and endangered species. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060337, ERP No. DS–COE– E39051–FL, Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Study, Updated Information on Operational Changes to the Current Water Control Plan, Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River Estuaries, Lake Okeechobee, FL. Summary: EPA commented that the interim schedule will need to be reevaluated in 2010 when additional storage areas are in place, and requested clarification regarding the existing conditions of Lake Okeechobee and estuaries, as well as the potential effects of the proposed new schedule on Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) goals. Rating EC1. Final EISs EIS No. 20060381, ERP No. F–AFS– D65032–WV, Programmatic— Monongahela National Forest Plan Revision, Proposes to Revise Land and Resource Management Plan, Barbour, Grant, Greenbrier, Nicholas, Pendleton, Pocahontab, Preston, Randolph, Tucker and Webster Counties, WV. Summary: EPA continues to have environment concerns about impacts caused by commercial/recreational activities and fragmentation from roadways. EIS No. 20060382, ERP No. F–BLM– K65291–00, Lake Havasu Field Office Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Colorado River, Davis Dam in the north and south to Park Dam, CA and AZ. Summary: EPA does not object to the project as proposed. EIS No. 20060387, ERP No. F–AFS– J65451–UT, West Fork Blacks Fork Allotment Management Plan, Proposes to Authorize Continued Livestock Grazing, Township 1 North, Range 11 East, Salt Lake Principle Meridan, Evanston Ranger District, WasatchCache National Forest, Summit County, UT. Summary: EPA’s previous concerns have been resolved; therefore, EPA does not object to the proposed action. EIS No. 20060391, ERP No. F–NRC– F06028–MN, Generic—License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 26 to NUREG 1437, Regarding Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC NO. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:26 Nov 08, 2006 Jkt 211001 MC6441) Renewal of Operating License DRP–22 for Additional 20-Years of Operation, Mississippi River, City of Monticello, Wright County, MN. Summary: EPA’s previous concerns have been resolved; therefore, EPA does not object to the proposed action. EIS No. 20060393, ERP No. F–COE– H36111–00, Kansas City’s Levees, Missouri and Kansas Flood Damage Reduction Study, Improvements to the Existing Line of Protection, Birmingham, Jackson, Clay Counties, MO and Wyandotte County, KS. Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20060397, ERP No. F–NAS– A12044–00, Programmatic— Development of Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, Two New Advanced RPS’s: Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) and Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG). Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action. EIS No. 20060404, ERP No. F–SFW– L64052–AK, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Draft Revised; Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Implementation, AK. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action. EIS No. 20060240, ERP No. FS–AFS– L65400–ID, West Gold Creek Project, Updated Information, Forest Management Activities Plan, Implementation, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Sandpoints Ranger District, Bonner County, ID. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action. EIS No. 20060386, ERP No. FS–AFS– F65034–WI, Northwest Howell Vegetation Management Project, New Information to Address Inadequate Disclosure of the Cumulative Effects Analysis for Six Animal and Two Plant Species, Eagle River-Florence Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicole National Forest, Florence and Forest Counties, WI. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action. EIS No. 20060424, ERP No. FS–FRC– C05146–00, Northeast (NE)–07 Project, Construction and Operation of a Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Millennium Pipeline Project—Phase I, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, several counties, NY, Morris County, NJ; Fairfield and New Haven Counties, CT. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action. Dated: November 6, 2006. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6–19022 Filed 11–8–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6680–9] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–7167 or https://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed 10/30/2006 through 11/03/2006 pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 EIS No. 20060452, Draft EIS, AFS, WA, Natapoc Ridge Restoration Project, To Improve Forest Health and Sustainability, and Reduce Wildfire and Hazardous Fuels, Wenatchee River Ranger District, OkanoganWenatchee National Forest, Chelan County, WA, Comment Period Ends: 12/26/2006, Contact: Steve Willet 509–548–6977. EIS No. 20060453, Final EIS, FHW, CA, Willits Freeway Bypass Project, Construction and Operation of a New Segment of U.S. 101, COE Section 404 Permit, NPDES Permit and Endangered Species Act (Incidental Take Permit), City of Willits, Mendocino County, CA, Wait Period Ends: 12/11/2006, Contact: Maiser Khaled 916–498–5020. EIS No. 20060454, Final EIS, SFW, CA, Orange County Southern Subregion Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Implementation, Application for and Incidental Take Permit, Orange County, CA, Wait Period Ends: 12/11/ 2006, Contact: Vicki Campbell 916– 414–6464. EIS No. 20060455, Draft EIS, WPA, AZ, San Luis Rio Colorado Project, Construct, Operate, Maintain, and Connect a Double-Circuited 500,000volt Electric Transmission Line, Right-of-Way Grant and Presidential Permit, (DOE/EIS–0395) Yuma County, AZ, Comment Period Ends: 12/26/2006, Contact: Mark J. Wieringa 720–962–7263. EIS No. 20060456, Final EIS, IBR, CA, Contra Costa Water District Alternative Intake Project, To Protect and Improve the Quality of Water Delivery to Untreated and TreatedWater Customers, Contra Costra County, CA, Wait Period Ends: 12/11/ 2006, Contact: Katrina Chow 916– 978–5067. EIS No. 20060457, Draft EIS, COE, TX, Brazos Harbor Navigation District Project, Proposed Port Freeport Channel Widening to the Entrance and Jetty Reach of the Freeport Harbor Jetty Channel and Entrance, Brazoria County, TX, Comment Period Ends: AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\09NON1.SGM 09NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65811-65812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19022]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6681-1]


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 202-564-7167.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in the FR dated April 7, 2006 
(71 FR 17845).

Draft EISs

    EIS No. 20060366, ERP No. D1-COE-D39028-00, Mid-Chesapeake Bay 
Island Ecosystem Restoration Integrated Feasibility Study, Using 
Uncontaminated Dredged Material from the Upper Chesapeake Bay Approach 
Channels to the Port of Baltimore to Restore and Protect Island Habitat 
in the Middle Portion of Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester County, MD.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
    Rating LO. EIS No. 20060284, ERP No. D-FHW-E40808-KY, I-66 Somerset 
to London Project, Construction from the Vicinity of the Northern 
Bypass (I-66) in Somerset, KY to I-75 between London and Corbin Cities, 
Pulaski, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Rockcastle and Laurel 
Counties, KY.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to 
wetlands, karst features and associated water resources, stream and 
river crossings, and potential construction-related impacts to the 
Daniel Boone National Forest. Rating EC2.
    EIS No. 20060356, ERP No. D-COE-F32198-00, Lock and Dam 3 
Mississippi River Navigation Safety and Embankments, To Reduce Related 
Navigation Safety and Embankment Problems, Upper Mississippi River, 
Goodhue County, MN and Pierce County, WI.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the proposed 
mitigation for impacts to forested floodplains and water quality, and 
requested additional information regarding the analysis of cumulative 
impacts. Rating EC2.
    EIS No. 20060358, ERP No. D-AFS-K39101-CA, Lake Davis Pike 
Eradication Project, To Eradicate Pike and Re-Establish Trout Fishery 
in the Tributaries, Special-Use-Permit, Plumas National Forest, Plumas 
County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about drinking water 
impacts, the possible presence of toxic blue-green algae, discharge 
permit requirements, neutralization options, and the overall 
effectiveness of the eradication project. Rating EC2.

[[Page 65812]]

    EIS No. 20060368, ERP No. D-NSF-K99036-HI, Advanced Technology 
Solar Telescope Project, Construction of Site at the University of 
Hawaii Institute for Astronomy, Haleakala High Altitude Observatory 
(HO) Site, Island of Maui, HI.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to 
cultural resources, Native Hawaiians, Haleakala National Park, and 
endangered species. Rating EC2.
    EIS No. 20060337, ERP No. DS-COE-E39051-FL, Lake Okeechobee 
Regulation Schedule Study, Updated Information on Operational Changes 
to the Current Water Control Plan, Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River 
Estuaries, Lake Okeechobee, FL.
    Summary: EPA commented that the interim schedule will need to be 
re-evaluated in 2010 when additional storage areas are in place, and 
requested clarification regarding the existing conditions of Lake 
Okeechobee and estuaries, as well as the potential effects of the 
proposed new schedule on Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) goals. Rating 
EC1.

Final EISs

    EIS No. 20060381, ERP No. F-AFS-D65032-WV, Programmatic--
Monongahela National Forest Plan Revision, Proposes to Revise Land and 
Resource Management Plan, Barbour, Grant, Greenbrier, Nicholas, 
Pendleton, Pocahontab, Preston, Randolph, Tucker and Webster Counties, 
WV.
    Summary: EPA continues to have environment concerns about impacts 
caused by commercial/recreational activities and fragmentation from 
roadways.
    EIS No. 20060382, ERP No. F-BLM-K65291-00, Lake Havasu Field Office 
Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Colorado River, Davis Dam in 
the north and south to Park Dam, CA and AZ.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the project as proposed.
    EIS No. 20060387, ERP No. F-AFS-J65451-UT, West Fork Blacks Fork 
Allotment Management Plan, Proposes to Authorize Continued Livestock 
Grazing, Township 1 North, Range 11 East, Salt Lake Principle Meridan, 
Evanston Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Summit County, 
UT.
    Summary: EPA's previous concerns have been resolved; therefore, EPA 
does not object to the proposed action.
    EIS No. 20060391, ERP No. F-NRC-F06028-MN, Generic--License Renewal 
of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 26 to NUREG 1437, Regarding Monticello 
Nuclear Generating Plant (TAC NO. MC6441) Renewal of Operating License 
DRP-22 for Additional 20-Years of Operation, Mississippi River, City of 
Monticello, Wright County, MN.
    Summary: EPA's previous concerns have been resolved; therefore, EPA 
does not object to the proposed action.
    EIS No. 20060393, ERP No. F-COE-H36111-00, Kansas City's Levees, 
Missouri and Kansas Flood Damage Reduction Study, Improvements to the 
Existing Line of Protection, Birmingham, Jackson, Clay Counties, MO and 
Wyandotte County, KS.
    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
    EIS No. 20060397, ERP No. F-NAS-A12044-00, Programmatic--
Development of Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems, Two New Advanced 
RPS's: Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) and 
Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG).
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
    EIS No. 20060404, ERP No. F-SFW-L64052-AK, Kodiak National Wildlife 
Refuge, Draft Revised; Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Implementation, 
AK.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
    EIS No. 20060240, ERP No. FS-AFS-L65400-ID, West Gold Creek 
Project, Updated Information, Forest Management Activities Plan, 
Implementation, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Sandpoints Ranger 
District, Bonner County, ID.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
    EIS No. 20060386, ERP No. FS-AFS-F65034-WI, Northwest Howell 
Vegetation Management Project, New Information to Address Inadequate 
Disclosure of the Cumulative Effects Analysis for Six Animal and Two 
Plant Species, Eagle River-Florence Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicole 
National Forest, Florence and Forest Counties, WI.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
    EIS No. 20060424, ERP No. FS-FRC-C05146-00, Northeast (NE)-07 
Project, Construction and Operation of a Natural Gas Pipeline 
Facilities, Millennium Pipeline Project--Phase I, U.S. Army COE Section 
10 and 404 Permits, several counties, NY, Morris County, NJ; Fairfield 
and New Haven Counties, CT.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.

    Dated: November 6, 2006.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E6-19022 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.