Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 72706-72707 [E7-24843]
Download as PDF
72706
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
7. Make sure to submit your
comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
8. 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.
III. What Information Collection
Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply
to?
Affected entities: Entities potentially
affected by this action are companies
that manufacture or import chemical
substances, mixtures, or categories.
Title: TSCA Section 8(a) Preliminary
Assessment Information Rule (PAIR).
ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0586.11,
OMB Control No. 2070–0054.
ICR status: This ICR is currently
scheduled to expire on May 31, 2008.
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 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: Section 8(a) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA)
authorizes EPA to promulgate rules
under which manufacturers, importers,
and processors of chemical substances
and mixtures must maintain records and
submit reports to EPA. EPA has
promulgated PAIR under TSCA section
8(a). EPA uses PAIR to collect
information to identify, assess, and
manage human health and
environmental risks from chemical
substances, mixtures, and categories.
PAIR requires chemical manufacturers
and importers to complete a
standardized reporting form to help
evaluate the potential for adverse
human health and environmental effects
caused by the manufacture or
importation of identified chemical
substances, mixtures, or categories.
Chemicals identified by EPA or any
other Federal Agency, for which a
justifiable information need for
production, use, or exposure-related
data can be satisfied by the use of the
PAIR are proper subjects for TSCA
section 8(a) PAIR rulemaking. In most
instances the information that EPA
receives from a PAIR report is sufficient
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:37 Dec 20, 2007
Jkt 214001
to satisfy the information need in
question. This information collection
addresses the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements associated
with TSCA section 8(a).
Responses to the collection of
information are mandatory (see 40 CFR
parts 712, 766, and 792). Respondents
may claim all or part of a document
confidential. EPA will disclose
information that is covered by a claim
of confidentiality only to the extent
permitted by, and in accordance with,
the procedures in TSCA section 14 and
40 CFR part 2.
Burden statement: The annual public
reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is
estimated to average 28.9 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.
The ICR provides a detailed
explanation of this estimate, which is
only briefly summarized here:
Estimated total number of potential
respondents: 26.
Frequency of response: On occasion.
Estimated total average number of
responses for each respondent: 2.1.
Estimated total annual burden hours:
1,568 hours.
Estimated total annual costs: $89,593.
This includes an estimated burden cost
of $89,593 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 988 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden
compared with that identified in the ICR
currently approved by OMB. This
increase reflects EPA’s experience with
the assumed number of PAIR reports
submitted annually, based on the past
five fiscal years (2003–2007) of PAIR
reporting data. The change is an
adjustment.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: December 14, 2007.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. E7–24842 Filed 12–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–6694–3]
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 FR dated April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17156).
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20070385, ERP No. D–FHW–
C40173–00, Peace Bridge Expansion
Project, Capacity Improvements to the
Peace Bridge, Plazas and Connecting
Roadways, U.S. Coast Guard Bridge
Permit, U.S. Army COE Section 10
and 404 Permits. City of Buffalo, Erie
County, NY and Town of Fort Erie,
Ontario, Canada. Summary: EPA
expressed environmental concerns
about air impacts, particularly during
the construction phase of the project,
as well as impacts to aquatic habitat.
EPA also recommends additional
cumulative impacts analyses be done.
Rating EC2.
E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM
21DEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2007 / Notices
EIS No. 20070409, ERP No. D–AFS–
J65392–MT, Beartooth Ranger District
Travel Management Planning,
Proposing to Designate Routes for
Public Motorized Use, and Change
Management of Pack and Saddle
Stock on Certain Trail, Beartooth
Ranger District, Custer National
Forest, Carbon, Stillwater, Sweet
Grass, and Park Counties, MT.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about
impacts to water quality, fisheries,
wildlife and other resources, and
recommended that the preferred
alternative include modifications to
reduce roads in high hazard areas,
avoid adding new roads and road
decommissioning to reduce risks to
water quality and fisheries. Rating
EC2.
EIS No. 20070430, ERP No. D–FHW–
E40818–NC, NC–119 Relocation
Project, Transportation Improvement
from the I–185/40 Interchange
Southwest of Mebane to Existing NC–
119 south of NC–1918 (Mrs White
Lane) Mebane, Right-of-Way
Acquisition, Alamance County, NC.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about
impacts to streams, a historic
property, a water supply area, and
possible residential relocations.
Rating EC1.
EIS No. 20070451, ERP No. D–AFS–
J65395–UT, Indian Springs Road
Realignment, Reducing Adverse
Impacts to Watershed and Fisheries,
U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit,
Uinta National Forest, Heber Ranger
District, Wasatch County, UT.
Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about
impacts to the roadless area, and
requested that other alternatives that
would avoid the roadless area be
investigated. If an alternative is not
available, EPA requested mitigation to
offset impacts to the roadless area.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070368, ERP No. DS–BLM–
K67052–NV, Newmont Gold Mining,
South Operations Area Project
Amendment, Updated Information on
the Cumulative Effects Analyses,
Operation and Expansion, Plan of
Operations, Elko and Eureka
Counties, NV. Summary: EPA
continues to have environmental
objections to the project because of its
potential significant adverse impacts
to water quality and the lack of
sufficient measures to ensure against
acid rock drainage. We recommend
the final SEIS provide additional
information regarding mine
geochemistry, measures to prevent
acid drainage, mitigation for potential
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:37 Dec 20, 2007
Jkt 214001
impacts to pit lake water quality,
water quality monitoring, mercury
emissions and controls, and financial
assurance. Rating EO2.
EIS No. 20070369, ERP No. DS–BLM–
K67056–NV, Leeville Mining Project,
Propose to Develop and Operate an
Underground Mine and Ancillary
Facilities including Dewatering
Operation, Updated Information on
the Cumulative Effects Analyses,
Plan-of-Operations/Right-of-Way
Permit and COE Section 404 Permit,
Elko and Eureka Counties, NV.
Summary: EPA continues to have
environmental concerns because of
the project’s potential significant
adverse impacts to water quality and
the lack of sufficient measures to
ensure against acid rock drainage. We
recommend the final SEIS provide
additional information regarding mine
geochemistry, measures to prevent
acid drainage, mercury emissions and
controls, and financial assurance.
Rating EC2.
Final EISs
EIS No. 20070446, ERP No. F–FHW–
F40438–IN, I–69 Evansville to
Indianapolis Project, I–69 Tier 2
Section 1: Evansville to Oakland City,
from 1–64 to IN–64, Preferred
Alternative is 4, Gibson and Warrick
Counties, IN. Summary: EPA does not
object to the proposed project.
EIS No. 20070448, ERP No. F–USA–
A15000–00, PROGRAMMATIC—
Army Growth and Force Structure
Realignment, Implementation,
Nationwide. Summary: EPA does not
object to the proposed project.
EIS No. 20070475, ERP No. F–FHW–
H40191–KS, ADOPTION—Kansas
Highway 10 (commonly known as
South Lawrence Trafficway)
Relocation, Issuance or Denial of
Section 404 Permit Request, Lawrence
City, Douglas County, KS. Summary:
No formal comment letter was sent to
the preparing agency.
Dated: December 18, 2007.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E7–24843 Filed 12–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[ER–FRL–6694–2]
Environmental Impacts Statements;
Notice of Availability
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal
Activities, General Information (202)
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72707
564–7167 or https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements
Filed 12/10/2007 Through 12/14/2007
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
EIS No. 20070522, Final EIS, IBR, CA,
Lower Yuba River Accord, Proposal to
Resolve Instream Flow Issues
Associated with Operation, Yuba
River, Yuba County, CA, Wait Period
Ends: 01/22/2008, Contact: Tim Rust
916–978–5516
EIS No. 20070523, Draft EIS, NRC, NC,
Generic—License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants (GEIS) Regarding Shearon
Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1,
Plant-Specific Supplement 33 to
NUREG–1437, Wake County, NC,
Comment Period Ends: 03/05/2008,
Contact: Samuel Hernandez 301–415–
4049.
EIS No. 20070524, Draft EIS, BLM, 00,
PROGRAMMATIC EIS—Oil Shale and
Tar Sands Resource Management
(RMP) Amendments to Address Land
Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah
and Wyoming, Comment Period Ends:
03/20/2008, Contact: Michael Nedd
202–208–4201.
EIS No. 20070525, Final EIS, NPS, CA,
Big Lagoon Wetland and Creek
Restoration Project, To Restore a
Functional, Self-Sustaining
Ecosystem, including Wetland,
Riparian, and Aquatic Components,
Golden Gate National Area, Muir
Beach, Marin County, CA, Wait Period
Ends: 02/04/2008, Contact: Steve
Ortega 415–561–4841.
EIS No. 20070526, Draft EIS, AFS, WY,
Thunder Basin National Grassland
Prairie Dog Management Strategy,
Land and Resource Management Plan
Amendment #3, Proposes to
Implement a Site-Specific Strategy to
Manage Black Trailed Prairie Dog,
Douglas Ranger District, Medicine
Bow-Routt National Forests and
Thunder Basin National Grassland,
Campbell, Converse, Niobrara and
Weston Counties, WY, Comment
Period Ends: 02/04/2008, Contact:
Misty Hays 307–358–4690.
EIS No. 20070527, Draft EIS, JUS, NV,
Las Vegas Detention Facility,
Proposed Contractor-Owned/
Contractor-Operated Detention
Facility, Implementation, Nevada
Area, Comment Period Ends: 02/04/
2008, Contact: Scott P. Stermer 202–
353–4601.
EIS No. 20070528, Final EIS, AFS, UT,
Millville Peak/Logan Peak Road
Relocation Project, Provide a Safe,
Reliable, Ground Access Route, Logan
Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache
National Forest, Cache County, UT,
E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM
21DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72706-72707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24843]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6694-3]
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 FR dated April 6, 2007 (72 FR 17156).
Draft EISs
EIS No. 20070385, ERP No. D-FHW-C40173-00, Peace Bridge Expansion
Project, Capacity Improvements to the Peace Bridge, Plazas and
Connecting Roadways, U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit, U.S. Army COE
Section 10 and 404 Permits. City of Buffalo, Erie County, NY and Town
of Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada. Summary: EPA expressed environmental
concerns about air impacts, particularly during the construction phase
of the project, as well as impacts to aquatic habitat. EPA also
recommends additional cumulative impacts analyses be done. Rating EC2.
[[Page 72707]]
EIS No. 20070409, ERP No. D-AFS-J65392-MT, Beartooth Ranger District
Travel Management Planning, Proposing to Designate Routes for Public
Motorized Use, and Change Management of Pack and Saddle Stock on
Certain Trail, Beartooth Ranger District, Custer National Forest,
Carbon, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, and Park Counties, MT. Summary: EPA
expressed environmental concerns about impacts to water quality,
fisheries, wildlife and other resources, and recommended that the
preferred alternative include modifications to reduce roads in high
hazard areas, avoid adding new roads and road decommissioning to reduce
risks to water quality and fisheries. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070430, ERP No. D-FHW-E40818-NC, NC-119 Relocation Project,
Transportation Improvement from the I-185/40 Interchange Southwest of
Mebane to Existing NC-119 south of NC-1918 (Mrs White Lane) Mebane,
Right-of-Way Acquisition, Alamance County, NC. Summary: EPA expressed
environmental concerns about impacts to streams, a historic property, a
water supply area, and possible residential relocations. Rating EC1.
EIS No. 20070451, ERP No. D-AFS-J65395-UT, Indian Springs Road
Realignment, Reducing Adverse Impacts to Watershed and Fisheries, U.S.
Army COE Section 404 Permit, Uinta National Forest, Heber Ranger
District, Wasatch County, UT. Summary: EPA expressed environmental
concerns about impacts to the roadless area, and requested that other
alternatives that would avoid the roadless area be investigated. If an
alternative is not available, EPA requested mitigation to offset
impacts to the roadless area. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20070368, ERP No. DS-BLM-K67052-NV, Newmont Gold Mining, South
Operations Area Project Amendment, Updated Information on the
Cumulative Effects Analyses, Operation and Expansion, Plan of
Operations, Elko and Eureka Counties, NV. Summary: EPA continues to
have environmental objections to the project because of its potential
significant adverse impacts to water quality and the lack of sufficient
measures to ensure against acid rock drainage. We recommend the final
SEIS provide additional information regarding mine geochemistry,
measures to prevent acid drainage, mitigation for potential impacts to
pit lake water quality, water quality monitoring, mercury emissions and
controls, and financial assurance. Rating EO2.
EIS No. 20070369, ERP No. DS-BLM-K67056-NV, Leeville Mining Project,
Propose to Develop and Operate an Underground Mine and Ancillary
Facilities including Dewatering Operation, Updated Information on the
Cumulative Effects Analyses, Plan-of-Operations/Right-of-Way Permit and
COE Section 404 Permit, Elko and Eureka Counties, NV. Summary: EPA
continues to have environmental concerns because of the project's
potential significant adverse impacts to water quality and the lack of
sufficient measures to ensure against acid rock drainage. We recommend
the final SEIS provide additional information regarding mine
geochemistry, measures to prevent acid drainage, mercury emissions and
controls, and financial assurance. Rating EC2.
Final EISs
EIS No. 20070446, ERP No. F-FHW-F40438-IN, I-69 Evansville to
Indianapolis Project, I-69 Tier 2 Section 1: Evansville to Oakland
City, from 1-64 to IN-64, Preferred Alternative is 4, Gibson and
Warrick Counties, IN. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed
project.
EIS No. 20070448, ERP No. F-USA-A15000-00, PROGRAMMATIC--Army Growth
and Force Structure Realignment, Implementation, Nationwide. Summary:
EPA does not object to the proposed project.
EIS No. 20070475, ERP No. F-FHW-H40191-KS, ADOPTION--Kansas Highway 10
(commonly known as South Lawrence Trafficway) Relocation, Issuance or
Denial of Section 404 Permit Request, Lawrence City, Douglas County,
KS. Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
Dated: December 18, 2007.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E7-24843 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P