Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 19927-19928 [E7-7547]
Download as PDF
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices
to verify some limited vehicle
information. Three of those who return
the card are called and asked about a
half dozen questions concerning vehicle
condition, and operation and
maintenance. Additional groups of
potential participants may be contacted
until a sufficient number of vehicles has
been obtained. Owners verify the survey
information when they deliver their
vehicles to EPA, voluntarily provide
maintenance records for copying, and
receive a loaner car or a cash incentive.
Procurement and testing are different
for the heavy-duty and nonroad in-use
testing program. All testing is done by
installing ‘‘Rover’’ portable emissions
monitoring devices on the vehicle or
engine during a period of operation.
Heavy-duty trucks, those commonly
referred to as over 3⁄4 ton capacity, are
usually employed commercially;
typically they are part of a fleet of
identical (or very similar) vehicles.
Consequently, EPA employs a slightly
different method to obtain them.
Potential owners/lessees can be found
in registrations lists; engine
manufacturers will also supply
identities of their customers. In
addition, EPA has a network of entities
who have shown a willingness to
participate over the years. Once a
potential source is identified, EPA will
make a brief telephone call to the fleet
manager to ascertain if they wish to
participate. If the response is positive,
EPA’s contractors will frequently visit
the fleet to install the testing
instruments at the company’s service
facility or government garage.
Otherwise, the lessee will be within
driving distance of the testing grounds
and the devices will be installed there.
The procedure for nonroad vehicles and
engines (e.g., farm tractors, compressors)
is similar; in some cases the vehicle or
engine may be rented for the day.
Therefore, EPA makes far fewer inquires
than with individual owners of light
vehicles in the process of procuring an
estimated 126 vehicles and engines a
year for this program. As with the lightduty component, all participation is
strictly voluntary.
Burden Statement: The annual public
reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is
estimated to average 0.15 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Apr 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
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.
The ICR Supporting Statement
provides a detailed explanation of the
Agency’s estimate, which is only briefly
summarized here:
Estimated total number of potential
respondents: Approximately 4,411
owners/lessees receive EPA’s
solicitations to participate and
approximately 336 do participate.
Frequency of response: On Occasion.
Estimated total average number of
responses for each respondent: One.
Estimated total annual burden hours:
658.
Estimated total annual costs: $49,320.
This includes an estimated burden cost
of $49,320 and an estimated cost of $0
for capital investment or maintenance
and operational costs.
Are There Changes in the Estimates
From the Last Approval?
There is an increase of 58 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden
compared with that identified in the ICR
currently approved by OMB. This
increase reflects EPA’s updating of
burden estimates based upon historical
information on the scope of EPA’s inuse testing programs and the number of
vehicles and engines tested. Note: This
ICR was previously titled, ‘‘Investigation
into Possible Noncompliance of Motor
Vehicles’’.
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. At that time, 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.
Dated: April 16, 2007.
Margo Tsirigotis Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
[FR Doc. E7–7542 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19927
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER-FRL–6686–2]
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
Federal Register dated April 6, 2007 (72
FR 17156).
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20060469, ERP No. D–FHW–
D40338–00, U.S. 301 Project
Development, Transportation
Improvements from MD State Line to
DE–1, South of the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal, New Castle County,
DE.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about wetland
impacts and requested additional
wetlands mitigation.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070014, ERP No. D–FHW–
F40439–WI, WI–15 Expansion, from
New London to Greenville, Funding,
U.S. Army COE 404 Permit,
Outagamie County, WI.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about wetland
and water quality impacts, air toxics,
and noise exposure.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070030, ERP No. D–IBR–
J28022–00, Red River Valley Water
Supply Project, Development and
Delivery of a Bulk Water Supply to
meet Long-Term Water Needs of the
Red River Valley, Implementation, ND
and MN.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about potential
impacts of Missouri River Basin
depletion and ecological impacts from
potential introduction of invasive
species. EPA provided
recommendations for biota transfer
water treatment, adaptive management,
and drought contingency measures.
Rating EC1.
EIS No. 20070050, ERP No. D–FRC–
G02015–00, East Texas to Mississippi
Expansion Project, Construction and
Operation of 243.3 miles Natural Gas
Pipeline to Transport Natural Gas
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
19928
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices
from Production Fields in eastern
Texas to Markets in the Gulf Coast,
Midwestern, Northeastern and
Southeastern United States.
Summary: EPA does not object to the
proposed action, but suggests updating
the air quality impact analysis.
Rating LO.
EIS No. 20070052, ERP No. D–NPS–
D61059–PA, Valley Forge National
Historical Park, General Management
Plan, Implementation, King of
Prussia, PA.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about potential
adverse impacts of the proposed actions
to water quality and wetlands. The Final
EIS should detail how the two proposed
bridges, removal of dams, potential for
mobilization of contaminants in
sediments behind the dam, increased
stormwater flow and changing forested
habitat to meadow will impact already
impaired waters and wildlife habitat.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070056, ERP No. D–FHW–
G40193–LA, I–49 South Project, from
Raceland to the Westbank Expressway
Route U.S. 90, Funding, Coast Guard
Bridge Permit, U.S. Army COE
Section 10 and 404 Permits, Jefferson,
Lafourche, and St. Charles Parishes,
LA.
Summary: EPA does not object to the
proposed action, but requests
clarification on some air quality issues.
Rating LO.
EIS No. 20070070, ERP No. DA–AFS–
K65283–CA, Empire Vegetation
Management Project, Supplemental
Information to Clarify Cumulative
Effects Analysis, Mount Hough
Ranger District, Plumas National
Forest, Plumas County, CA.
Summary: EPA does not object to the
proposed action, but requests
clarification of monitoring and adaptive
management issues.
Rating LO.
EIS No. 20060236, ERP No. DS–AFS–
L65383–ID, Hidden Cedar Project,
Updated Information, Manage
Vegetation Conditions and the
Transportation System, Idaho
Panhandle National Forests, St. Joe
Ranger District, Benewah, Latah and
Shoshone Counties, ID.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about the
potential adverse of water quality
impacts due to the proposed increase in
road miles which would occur in
watersheds that are already impaired
from existing high road densities, as
well as past mining and grazing
activities.
Rating EC2.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:52 Apr 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
Final EISs
EIS No. 20070024, ERP No. F–AFS–
D65033–PA, West Branch of Tionesta
Project, Multiple Resource
Management, Implementation
Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny
National Forest, Warren County, PA.
Summary: EPA does not object to the
proposed project.
EIS No. 20070074, ERP No. F–SFW–
K65493–CA, East Contra Costa County
Habitat Conservation Plan and
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, Implementation, Incidental Take
Permit, Cities of Brentwood, Clayton,
Oakley and Pittsburg, Contra Costa
County, CA.
Summary: EPA’s previous concerns
have been addressed; therefore, EPA
does not object to the proposed action.
EIS No. 20070076, ERP No. F–AFS–
F65064–WI, Boulder Project, Timber
Harvesting, Vegetation and Road
Management, U.S. Army COE Section
404 Permit, Chequamegon-Nicolet
National Forest, Lakewood-Laona
Ranger District, Oconto and Langlade
Counties, WI.
Summary: While the final EIS
addressed EPA’s request for additional
analysis of cumulative impacts, EPA
continues to have environmental
concerns about the lack of specific
habitat information.
EIS No. 20070081, ERP No. F–JUS–
G81013–TX, Laredo Detention
Facility, Proposed Contractor-Owned/
Contractor-Operated Detention
Facility, Implementation, Webb
County, TX.
Summary: No formal comment letter
was sent to the preparing agency.
EIS No. 20070082, ERP No. F–GSA–
D81037–VA, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Central Records
Complex, Alternative 4—Sempeles
Site, Winchester, Frederick County,
VA.
Summary: EPA does not object to the
proposed action.
EIS No. 20070090, ERP No. F–AFS–
J65462–00, Dakota Prairie Grasslands
Noxious Weed Management Project,
Implementation, Billings, Slope,
Golden Valley, Sioux, Grant,
McHenry, Ransom and Richland
Counties, ND and Corson, Perkins,
and Ziebach Counties, SD.
Summary: No formal comment letter
was sent to the preparing agency.
Dated: April 17, 2007.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E7–7547 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–6686–1]
Environmental Impacts Statements;
Notice of Availability
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal
Activities, General Information (202)
564–7167 or https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements filed 04/09/2007 through
04/13/2007 pursuant to 40 CFR
1506.9.
EIS No. 20070144, Final EIS, AFS, CA,
Brown Project, Proposal to Improve
Forest Health by Reducing
Overcrowded Forest Stand
Conditions, Trinity River
Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity
National Forest, Weaverville Ranger
District, Trinity County, CA, Wait
Period Ends: 05/21/2007, Contact:
Joyce Andersen 530–623–2121.
EIS No. 20070145, Draft Supplement,
AFS, UT, Ogden Ranger District
Travel Plan Revision, To Present
Additional Analysis for Six
Alternatives, Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, Ogden Ranger District, Box
Elder, Cache, Morgan, Weber and
Rich Counties, UT, Comment Period
Ends: 06/04/2007, Contact: Rick
Vallejos 801–625–5112.
EIS No. 20070146, Final EIS, COE, CA,
ADOPTION—Folsom Dam Safety and
Flood Damage Reduction Project,
Addressing Hydrologic, Seismic,
Static, and Flood Management Issues,
Sacramento, El Dorado and Placer
Counties, CA, Wait Period Ends: 05/
21/2007, Contact: Jane Rinck 916–
557–6715.
EIS No. 20070147, Draft EIS, AFS, MT,
Trapper Bunk House Land
Stewardship Project, Reduce Risk
from Stand-Replacing and
Uncontrollable Fires, Improve
Resiliency and Provide Forest
Products, Fuel Reduction Research
and Watershed Improvement,
Bitterroot National Forest, Darby
Ranger District, Ravalli County, MT,
Comment Period Ends: 06/04/2007,
Contact: Chuck Oliver 406–821–3913.
EIS No. 20070148, Final EIS, FHW, NC,
US 64 Corridor Project,
Transportation Improvements in the
Vicinity of the City of Asheboro and
Improved Access to the NC Zoological
Park, Funding and COE Section 404
Permit, Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) Project No. R–2536,
Randolph County, NC, Wait Period
Ends: 05/21/2007, Contact: John F.
Sullivan 919–856–4346.
EIS No. 20070149, Draft EIS, FRC, 00,
Southeast Expansion Project,
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 76 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19927-19928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7547]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6686-2]
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 Federal Register dated
April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17156).
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20060469, ERP No. D-FHW-D40338-00, U.S. 301 Project
Development, Transportation Improvements from MD State Line to DE-1,
South of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, New Castle County, DE.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about wetland impacts
and requested additional wetlands mitigation.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070014, ERP No. D-FHW-F40439-WI, WI-15 Expansion, from New
London to Greenville, Funding, U.S. Army COE 404 Permit, Outagamie
County, WI.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about wetland and
water quality impacts, air toxics, and noise exposure.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070030, ERP No. D-IBR-J28022-00, Red River Valley Water
Supply Project, Development and Delivery of a Bulk Water Supply to meet
Long-Term Water Needs of the Red River Valley, Implementation, ND and
MN.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential
impacts of Missouri River Basin depletion and ecological impacts from
potential introduction of invasive species. EPA provided
recommendations for biota transfer water treatment, adaptive
management, and drought contingency measures.
Rating EC1.
EIS No. 20070050, ERP No. D-FRC-G02015-00, East Texas to Mississippi
Expansion Project, Construction and Operation of 243.3 miles Natural
Gas Pipeline to Transport Natural Gas
[[Page 19928]]
from Production Fields in eastern Texas to Markets in the Gulf Coast,
Midwestern, Northeastern and Southeastern United States.
Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action, but suggests
updating the air quality impact analysis.
Rating LO.
EIS No. 20070052, ERP No. D-NPS-D61059-PA, Valley Forge National
Historical Park, General Management Plan, Implementation, King of
Prussia, PA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential
adverse impacts of the proposed actions to water quality and wetlands.
The Final EIS should detail how the two proposed bridges, removal of
dams, potential for mobilization of contaminants in sediments behind
the dam, increased stormwater flow and changing forested habitat to
meadow will impact already impaired waters and wildlife habitat.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070056, ERP No. D-FHW-G40193-LA, I-49 South Project, from
Raceland to the Westbank Expressway Route U.S. 90, Funding, Coast Guard
Bridge Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Jefferson,
Lafourche, and St. Charles Parishes, LA.
Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action, but requests
clarification on some air quality issues.
Rating LO.
EIS No. 20070070, ERP No. DA-AFS-K65283-CA, Empire Vegetation
Management Project, Supplemental Information to Clarify Cumulative
Effects Analysis, Mount Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest,
Plumas County, CA.
Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action, but requests
clarification of monitoring and adaptive management issues.
Rating LO.
EIS No. 20060236, ERP No. DS-AFS-L65383-ID, Hidden Cedar Project,
Updated Information, Manage Vegetation Conditions and the
Transportation System, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, St. Joe Ranger
District, Benewah, Latah and Shoshone Counties, ID.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential
adverse of water quality impacts due to the proposed increase in road
miles which would occur in watersheds that are already impaired from
existing high road densities, as well as past mining and grazing
activities.
Rating EC2.
Final EISs
EIS No. 20070024, ERP No. F-AFS-D65033-PA, West Branch of Tionesta
Project, Multiple Resource Management, Implementation Bradford Ranger
District, Allegheny National Forest, Warren County, PA.
Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project.
EIS No. 20070074, ERP No. F-SFW-K65493-CA, East Contra Costa County
Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan,
Implementation, Incidental Take Permit, Cities of Brentwood, Clayton,
Oakley and Pittsburg, Contra Costa County, CA.
Summary: EPA's previous concerns have been addressed; therefore,
EPA does not object to the proposed action.
EIS No. 20070076, ERP No. F-AFS-F65064-WI, Boulder Project, Timber
Harvesting, Vegetation and Road Management, U.S. Army COE Section 404
Permit, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Lakewood-Laona Ranger
District, Oconto and Langlade Counties, WI.
Summary: While the final EIS addressed EPA's request for additional
analysis of cumulative impacts, EPA continues to have environmental
concerns about the lack of specific habitat information.
EIS No. 20070081, ERP No. F-JUS-G81013-TX, Laredo Detention Facility,
Proposed Contractor-Owned/Contractor-Operated Detention Facility,
Implementation, Webb County, TX.
Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
EIS No. 20070082, ERP No. F-GSA-D81037-VA, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) Central Records Complex, Alternative 4--Sempeles
Site, Winchester, Frederick County, VA.
Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
EIS No. 20070090, ERP No. F-AFS-J65462-00, Dakota Prairie Grasslands
Noxious Weed Management Project, Implementation, Billings, Slope,
Golden Valley, Sioux, Grant, McHenry, Ransom and Richland Counties, ND
and Corson, Perkins, and Ziebach Counties, SD.
Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
Dated: April 17, 2007.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E7-7547 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P