Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 6288-6289 [E9-2555]

Download as PDF 6288 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Notices 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 the Agency’s estimate, which is only briefly summarized here: Estimated total number of potential respondents: 294. Frequency of response: Bi-annual for subtitle C grant recipients; quarterly for subtitle A grant recipients. Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 20. Estimated total annual burden hours: 8,683. Estimated total annual costs: $547,345. This includes an estimated burden cost of $547,345 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 no change in hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 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. VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:48 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 217001 Dated: January 29, 2009. David R. Lloyd, Director, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization. [FR Doc. E9–2558 Filed 2–5–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–8590–3] 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 202–564–7146. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 6, 2008 (73 FR 19833). Draft EISs EIS No. 20080408, ERP No. D–COE– E15002–GA, Fort McPherson Project, Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, in City Limits of Atlanta, Fulton County, GA. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential impacts to air quality, as well as water supply and water quality; and requested that the Final EIS account for drought conditions and impaired stream impacts. EPA also requested that the DOA consider encumbrances that would be protective of water quality and encourage local community participation in the implementation of the proposed action. Rating EC1. EIS No. 20080421, ERP No. D–NSA– D11045–MD, Fort George G. Meade Utilities Upgrade Project, Proposes to Construct and Operate (1) North Utility Plant (2) South Generator Facility and (3) Central Boiler Plant, Fort George M. Meade, MD. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to forested resources on the Forest Conservation Area. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20080451, ERP No. D–COE– K80051–CA, University of California (UC) Merced Campus and University Community Project, Development of a Major Research University, To Allow for the Discharge of Fill Material into 76.7 Acres of Wetlands, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Merced County, CA. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential impacts to wetlands, groundwater supply, and air quality. EPA also recommended measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and recommended additional information on cumulative and growth inducing impacts be provided in the Final EIS. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20080480, ERP No. D–USN– C11023–NJ, Laurelwood Housing Area, Access at Naval Weapons Station Earle, Lease Agreement, Monmouth County, NJ. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO. EIS No. 20080481, ERP No. D–NOA– K80052–CA, Southwest Fisheries Science Center Replacement, Construction and Operation, located on University of California, San Diego Scripps Institute of Oceanography Campus, La Jolla, CA. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about air quality construction impacts, and impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20080506, ERP No. D–USA– E11069–GA, Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia Project, Proposed Community Services, Personnel Support, Classroom Barracks, and Dining Facilities would be Constructed in three of the four Cantonment Areas, Fort Benning, GA. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to aquatic habitats, water resources, and wetlands. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20080440, ERP No. DA–COE– K39052–CA, Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project, Dredged Material Aquatic Transfer Facility, Implementation, Marin County, CA. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns because of the lack of information regarding avoiding impacts to green sturgeon and long-fin smelt and recommended coordination with NOAA Fisheries. Additional concerns include water quality monitoring, reducing criteria pollutant emissions, and consistency with local dredge sediment disposal goals. Rating EC2. Final EISs EIS No. 20080456, ERP No. F–COE– D40340–PA, Southern Beltway Transportation Project, Transportation Improvement between I–79 to Mon/ Fayette Expressway (PA Turnpike 43), Application for U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Washington County, PA. E:\FR\FM\06FEN1.SGM 06FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Notices Dated: February 3, 2009. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E9–2555 Filed 2–5–09; 8:45 am] Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 01/26/2009 Through 01/30/2009 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 EIS No. 20090027, Final EIS, FHW, TX, Grand Parkway/State Highway 99 Improvement Project, Segment G, from Interstate Highway (IH) 45 to U.S. 59, Funding, Right-of-Way Grant, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Harris and Montgomery Counties, TX, Wait Period Ends: 03/16/2009, Contact: Justin Ham 512–536–5963 EIS No. 20090028, Draft EIS, NPS, IN, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Draft White-Tailed Deer Management Plan, Implementation, Lake, Porter, LaPorte Counties, IN, Comment Period Ends: 04/06/2009, Contact: Nick Chevance 402–661–1844 EIS No. 20090029, Final EIS, NSA, MD, Fort George G. Meade Utilities Upgrade Project, Proposes to Construct and Operate (1) North Utility Plant (2) South Generator Facility and (3) Central Boiler Plant, Fort George M. Meade, MD, Wait Period Ends: 03/09/2009, Contact: Jeffrey D, Williams 301–688–2970 EIS No. 20090030, Final EIS, COE, CO, Fort Carson Grow the Army Stationing Decision, Constructing New Facilities to Support Additional Soldiers and their Families, Portions of El Paso, Pueblo and Fremont Counties, CO, Wait Period Ends: 03/ 09/2009, Contact: Mike Ackerman 410–436–2522 EIS No. 20090031, Second Draft EIS (Tiering), FHW, IN, I–69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana Project, Section 2, Oakland City to Washington, (IN– 64 to U.S. 50), Gibson, Pike and Daviess Counties, IN, Comment Period Ends: 06/08/2009, Contact: Janice Osacdczuk 317–226–7486 EIS No. 20090032, Second Draft EIS (Tiering), FHW, IN, I–69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana Project, Section 3, Washington to Crane NSWC (US 50 to U.S. 231), Daviess, Greene, Knox and Martin Counties, IN, Comment Period Ends: 06/08/2009, Contact: Janice Oscadczuk 317–226–7486 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Amended Notices Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential impacts to wetlands, and recommended additional efforts to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those impacts. EPA also expressed concerns about the methodology used to identify and assess potential environmental justice issues. EIS No. 20080522, ERP No. F–NRC– E06026–GA, GENERIC—License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 34 to NUREG–1437, Regarding Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) near Waynesboro, GA. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about radiological monitoring of plant effluents, and requested appropriate storage and disposition of radioactive waste. EIS No. 20080534, ERP No. F–IBR– L39041–WA, Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study, Create Additional Water Storage, Benton, Yakima, Kittitas Counties, WA. Summary: EPA does not object to the preferred alternative for the project. EIS No. 20080478, ERP No. FS–COE– K32046–CA, Pacific Los Angeles Marine Terminal, Pier 400 Berth 408 Project, Construction and Operation of a new Marine Terminal, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA. Summary: EPA reiterated its environmental concerns about impacts to air quality, environmental justice communities, and aquatic resources. EPA recommended commitments to reduce and mitigate air quality impacts, implementation of a health impact assessment to identify appropriate mitigations for disproportionately affected neighboring communities, and mitigation for fill. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES [ER–FRL–8590–2] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–1399 or https://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/. VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:16 Feb 05, 2009 Jkt 217001 EIS No. 20080007, Final EIS, STA, 00, Keystone Oil Pipeline Project, Proposed Construction, Connection, Operation and Maintenance, Applicant for Presidential Permit, ND, SD, NE, KS, MO, IL and OK, Contact: Nicholas J. Stas, 406–247–7399 Amended Notice: The U.S. Department of Energy’s, Western Area Power Administration (DOE/WPA) has ADOPTED the U.S. Department of State’s FEIS #2008007 filed on 01/04/ PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6289 2008. DOE/WPA was a Cooperating Agency for the above project. Recirculation of the FEIS is not necessary under 40 CFR 1506.3(c). Dated: February 3, 2009. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities [FR Doc. E9–2556 Filed 2–5–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection(s) Being Submitted for Review to the Office of Management and Budget February 3, 2009. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection(s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments should be submitted on or before April 7, 2009. If you anticipate that you will be submitting PRA comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the FCC contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395– 5887, or via fax at 202–395–5167 or via Internet at Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov and E:\FR\FM\06FEN1.SGM 06FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 24 (Friday, February 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6288-6289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2555]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8590-3]


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 202-564-7146.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 6, 2008 (73 FR 
19833).

Draft EISs

EIS No. 20080408, ERP No. D-COE-E15002-GA, Fort McPherson Project, 
Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, in City Limits of Atlanta, Fulton 
County, GA.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential 
impacts to air quality, as well as water supply and water quality; and 
requested that the Final EIS account for drought conditions and 
impaired stream impacts. EPA also requested that the DOA consider 
encumbrances that would be protective of water quality and encourage 
local community participation in the implementation of the proposed 
action. Rating EC1.

EIS No. 20080421, ERP No. D-NSA-D11045-MD, Fort George G. Meade 
Utilities Upgrade Project, Proposes to Construct and Operate (1) North 
Utility Plant (2) South Generator Facility and (3) Central Boiler 
Plant, Fort George M. Meade, MD.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to 
forested resources on the Forest Conservation Area. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080451, ERP No. D-COE-K80051-CA, University of California 
(UC) Merced Campus and University Community Project, Development of a 
Major Research University, To Allow for the Discharge of Fill Material 
into 76.7 Acres of Wetlands, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Merced 
County, CA.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential 
impacts to wetlands, groundwater supply, and air quality. EPA also 
recommended measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 
recommended additional information on cumulative and growth inducing 
impacts be provided in the Final EIS. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080480, ERP No. D-USN-C11023-NJ, Laurelwood Housing Area, 
Access at Naval Weapons Station Earle, Lease Agreement, Monmouth 
County, NJ.

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

EIS No. 20080481, ERP No. D-NOA-K80052-CA, Southwest Fisheries Science 
Center Replacement, Construction and Operation, located on University 
of California, San Diego Scripps Institute of Oceanography Campus, La 
Jolla, CA.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about air quality 
construction impacts, and impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub. Rating 
EC2.

EIS No. 20080506, ERP No. D-USA-E11069-GA, Maneuver Center of 
Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia Project, Proposed Community 
Services, Personnel Support, Classroom Barracks, and Dining Facilities 
would be Constructed in three of the four Cantonment Areas, Fort 
Benning, GA.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to 
aquatic habitats, water resources, and wetlands. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080440, ERP No. DA-COE-K39052-CA, Hamilton Wetland 
Restoration Project, Dredged Material Aquatic Transfer Facility, 
Implementation, Marin County, CA.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns because of the lack 
of information regarding avoiding impacts to green sturgeon and long-
fin smelt and recommended coordination with NOAA Fisheries. Additional 
concerns include water quality monitoring, reducing criteria pollutant 
emissions, and consistency with local dredge sediment disposal goals. 
Rating EC2.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20080456, ERP No. F-COE-D40340-PA, Southern Beltway 
Transportation Project, Transportation Improvement between I-79 to Mon/
Fayette Expressway (PA Turnpike 43), Application for U.S. Army COE 
Section 404 Permit, Washington County, PA.


[[Page 6289]]


    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential 
impacts to wetlands, and recommended additional efforts to avoid, 
minimize, and mitigate those impacts. EPA also expressed concerns about 
the methodology used to identify and assess potential environmental 
justice issues.

EIS No. 20080522, ERP No. F-NRC-E06026-GA, GENERIC--License Renewal of 
Nuclear Plants, Supplement 34 to NUREG-1437, Regarding Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 (VEGP) near Waynesboro, GA.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about radiological 
monitoring of plant effluents, and requested appropriate storage and 
disposition of radioactive waste.

EIS No. 20080534, ERP No. F-IBR-L39041-WA, Yakima River Basin Water 
Storage Feasibility Study, Create Additional Water Storage, Benton, 
Yakima, Kittitas Counties, WA.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the preferred alternative for the 
project.

EIS No. 20080478, ERP No. FS-COE-K32046-CA, Pacific Los Angeles Marine 
Terminal, Pier 400 Berth 408 Project, Construction and Operation of a 
new Marine Terminal, U.S. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Port of 
Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA.

    Summary: EPA reiterated its environmental concerns about impacts to 
air quality, environmental justice communities, and aquatic resources. 
EPA recommended commitments to reduce and mitigate air quality impacts, 
implementation of a health impact assessment to identify appropriate 
mitigations for disproportionately affected neighboring communities, 
and mitigation for fill.

    Dated: February 3, 2009.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9-2555 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.