Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 21004-21005 [E7-8099]

Download as PDF 21004 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified under DATES. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to? Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are S/L/Ts participating in this voluntary program. These government establishments are classified as Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 9511 and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 92411. No industries under any SIC or NAICS codes will be included among respondents. Title: Application Requirements for the Approval and Delegation of Federal Air Toxics Programs to State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Agencies. ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1643.06, OMB Control No. 2060–0264. ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007. 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:18 Apr 26, 2007 Jkt 211001 control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or 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: This information collection is an application from State, territorial, local, or tribal agencies (S/L/Ts) for delegation of regulations developed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act). The five options for delegation are straight delegation, rule adjustment, rule substitution, equivalency by permit, or state program approval. The information is needed and used to determine if the entity submitting an application has met the criteria established in the subpart E rule, codified as 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, in accordance with section 112(l) of the Act. This information is necessary and required for the Administrator to determine the acceptability of approving the S/L/T’s rules, requirements or programs in lieu of the Federal section 112 rules or programs. Additionally, it is also necessary for the proper performance of our function, and will be used to ensure that the subpart E approval criteria have been met. The collection of information is authorized under 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 341 hours per S/L/ T and 41 hours per application. 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. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency’s estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: • Estimated total number of potential respondents: 124 S/L/Ts PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • Frequency of response: One time per delegation request • Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 8 • Estimated total annual burden hours: 41,577 • Estimated total annual respondent costs: $1,816,490. This includes an estimated labor burden cost of $1,790,760 and operation and maintenance costs result from photocopying and postage expenses, which are a total of $25,720. Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval? We are in the process of reviewing the key assumptions in the ICR that affect the overall burden estimation. These include, the number of delegation activities expected to occur during the upcoming clearance period, the delegation options most likely to be used by the delegated S/L/Ts, and the burden associated with each of the options. Depending on the outcome of this review, there could be changes in the overall burden estimates. 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 20, 2007. Gregory A. Green, Director, Outreach and Information Division. [FR Doc. E7–8098 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL6686–4] 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 E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM 27APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 81 / Friday April 27, 2007 / Notices 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 FR dated April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17156). cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Draft EISs EIS No. 20060541, ERP No. D–BLM– L65529–ID, Pocatello Resource Management Plan, To Provide Direction for Managing Public Lands in the Idaho Falls Districts, Pocatello Field Office (PFO), Implementation, Several Counties, ID. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential for adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic habitat and wildlife, additional roads and snowmobiles and off road vehicles. The Final EIS should consider mitigation to strengthen resource protection measures. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060523, ERP No. DA–COE– E39050–FL, Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation Project, To Reconstruct and Rehabilitate Reach 2 and 3, Supplement to the 1999 Draft EIS, Palm Beach, Glades and Martin Counties, FL. Summary: EPA supports the proposed rehabilitation of the Herbert Hoover Dike; however, EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential environmental impacts. Specifically, EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential impacts to wetlands, and requested additional information regarding the wetlands mitigation proposal. Rating EC1. EIS No. 20060512, ERP No. DS–BLM– J02038–WY, Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project, Updated Information on a Proposal for LongTerm Development with Year Round Drilling, Sublette County, WY. Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections about the project: The range of alternatives analyzed; adverse impacts to air quality; and adverse impacts to wildlife. EPA recommends that the Final EIS should consider available alternatives to mitigate significant impacts to the environment. Rating EO2. EIS No. 20070064, ERP No. DS–FHW– G40129–AR, U.S. 67 Construction, U.S. 67/167 to I–40 West/I–430 Interchange around the North Little Rock Metropolitan Area, New and Updated Information, Funding, Pulaski County, AR. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:18 Apr 26, 2007 Jkt 211001 Final EISs EIS No. 20070143, ERP No. F–WPA– J08027–SD, White Wind Farm Project, Construct a Large Utility-Scale WindPowered Electric Energy Generating Facility, Sherman Township, Brookings County, SD. Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20060522, ERP No. FA–COE– E39054–FL, Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Protection, Interim Operation Plan (IOP), Additional Information Alternative 7, Providing Additional Flood Control Capacity, Implementation, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, FL. Summary: EPA supports implementation of the proposed operation plan, as it appears to be the best practicable solution to the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow issue. Dated: April 24, 2007. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E7–8099 Filed 4–26–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6686–3] Environmental Impact 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 04/16/2007 Through 04/20/2007 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 20070157, Final EIS, MMS, 00, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007–2012, Exploration and Development Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal Counties of AL, AK, DE, FL, LA, MD, MS, NJ, NC, TX and VA, Wait Period Ends: 05/29/2007, Contact: James F. Bennett 703–787– 1660. EIS No. 20070158, Final EIS, FAA, AK, Juneau International Airport, Proposed Development Activities to Enhance Operations Safety, Facilitate Aircraft Alignment, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, City and Borough of Juneau, AK, Wait Period Ends: 05/ 29/2007, Contact: Patti Sullivan 907– 271–5454. EIS No. 20070159, Draft EIS, COE, FL, Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 21005 Restoration Plan, Caloosahatchee River (C–43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project, Restoration of the Ecosystem in Caloosahatchee Estuary, Lake Okeechobee, FL, Comment Period Ends: 06/11/2007, Contact: Susan Conner 904–232–1782. EIS No. 20070160, Fifth Draft Supplement, NOA, NC, Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Amendment 11, Implementation to Control Capcaity and Mortality in the General Category Scallop Fishery, Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, NC, Comment Period Ends: 06/11/2007, Contact: Patricia A. Kurkul 978–281–9250. EIS No. 20070161, Final EIS, IBR, 00, Upper Rio Grande Basin Water Operations Review, Preferred Alternative E–3, To Develop an Integrated Plan for Water Operations at the Existing Facilities, NM, CO and TX, Wait Period Ends: 05/29/2007, Contact: Valda Terauds 505–462– 3584. EIS No. 20070162, Final EIS, FRC, LA, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline Project, Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Construction and Operation, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Evangeline, Cameron, and Acadia Parishes, LA, Wait Period Ends: 05/29/2007, Contact: Andy Black 1–866–208– 3372. EIS No. 20070163, Draft EIS, BLM, ID, Eastside Township Fuels and Vegetation Project, Address the Forest Health, Fuels, Safety, and Watershed Issues, Elk City, Idaho County, ID, Comment Period Ends: 06/11/2007, Contact: Robbin Boyce 208–962–3594. Amended Notices EIS No. 20070055, Draft EIS, AFS, ID, Idaho Cobalt Project, Development of Two Underground Mines, a Waste Disposal Site and Associated Facilities, Approval of Plan-ofOperation, Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District, Salmon-Challis National Forest, Lemhi County, ID, Comment Period Ends: 05/24/2007, Contact: Ray Henderson 208–756–5231 Revision to FR Notice Published 02/23/2007: Extending comment period from 04/ 24/2007 to 05/24/2007. EIS No. 20070063, Draft Supplement, USN, 00, Introduction of F/A 18 E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft, Updated Information, Construction and Operation of an Outlying Landing Field, Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, VA; Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point, NC, Comment Period Ends: 05/09/2007, Contact: Francine Blend 757–322–4332. Revision to FR Notice Published 02/ E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM 27APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 81 (Friday, April 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21004-21005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8099]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL6686-4]


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

[[Page 21005]]

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 FR dated April 6, 2007 (72 FR 
17156).

Draft EISs

EIS No. 20060541, ERP No. D-BLM-L65529-ID, Pocatello Resource 
Management Plan, To Provide Direction for Managing Public Lands in the 
Idaho Falls Districts, Pocatello Field Office (PFO), Implementation, 
Several Counties, ID.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential 
for adverse impacts to water quality, aquatic habitat and wildlife, 
additional roads and snowmobiles and off road vehicles. The Final EIS 
should consider mitigation to strengthen resource protection measures. 
Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20060523, ERP No. DA-COE-E39050-FL, Herbert Hoover Dike Major 
Rehabilitation Project, To Reconstruct and Rehabilitate Reach 2 and 3, 
Supplement to the 1999 Draft EIS, Palm Beach, Glades and Martin 
Counties, FL.

    Summary: EPA supports the proposed rehabilitation of the Herbert 
Hoover Dike; however, EPA expressed environmental concerns about 
potential environmental impacts. Specifically, EPA expressed 
environmental concerns about potential impacts to wetlands, and 
requested additional information regarding the wetlands mitigation 
proposal. Rating EC1.

EIS No. 20060512, ERP No. DS-BLM-J02038-WY, Pinedale Anticline Oil and 
Gas Exploration and Development Project, Updated Information on a 
Proposal for Long-Term Development with Year Round Drilling, Sublette 
County, WY.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections about the project: 
The range of alternatives analyzed; adverse impacts to air quality; and 
adverse impacts to wildlife. EPA recommends that the Final EIS should 
consider available alternatives to mitigate significant impacts to the 
environment. Rating EO2.

EIS No. 20070064, ERP No. DS-FHW-G40129-AR, U.S. 67 Construction, U.S. 
67/167 to I-40 West/I-430 Interchange around the North Little Rock 
Metropolitan Area, New and Updated Information, Funding, Pulaski 
County, AR.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20070143, ERP No. F-WPA-J08027-SD, White Wind Farm Project, 
Construct a Large Utility-Scale Wind-Powered Electric Energy Generating 
Facility, Sherman Township, Brookings County, SD.

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

EIS No. 20060522, ERP No. FA-COE-E39054-FL, Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow 
Protection, Interim Operation Plan (IOP), Additional Information 
Alternative 7, Providing Additional Flood Control Capacity, 
Implementation, Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, FL.

    Summary: EPA supports implementation of the proposed operation 
plan, as it appears to be the best practicable solution to the Cape 
Sable Seaside Sparrow issue.

    Dated: April 24, 2007.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E7-8099 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.