Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 7228-7229 [E9-3139]

Download as PDF 7228 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 29 / Friday, February 13, 2009 / Notices 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. II. 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. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity. 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. cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES III. What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply to? Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR are companies that manufacture, process, import, or distribute in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and that obtain information that reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. Title: Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the Environment under TSCA Section 8(e). ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0794.12, OMB Control No. 2070–0046. ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October 31, 2009. 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 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:38 Feb 12, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. Abstract: Section 8(e) of TSCA requires that any person who manufactures, imports, processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment must immediately inform EPA of such information. This information collection refers to that reporting requirement. EPA routinely disseminates TSCA section 8(e) data it receives to other Federal agencies to provide information about newly discovered chemical hazards and risks. Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (see 15 U.S.C. 2607(e)). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice 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 range between 5 and 51 hours per response, depending upon the nature of the 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: 390. Frequency of response: On occasion. Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.3. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Estimated total annual burden hours: 30,515 hours. Estimated total annual costs: $2,057,588. This includes an estimated burden cost of $2,057,588 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 12,380 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects EPA’s current estimates as to the number of TSCA section 8(e) submissions anticipated in the next three years compared with earlier years. The 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: February 4, 2009. James Jones, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. [FR Doc. E9–3054 Filed 2–12–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–8590–5] 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. E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM 13FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 29 / Friday, February 13, 2009 / Notices An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 6, 2008 (73 FR 19833). cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES Draft EISs EIS No. 20070046, ERP No. D–BLM– J65476–CO, Little Snake Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Moffat, Routt and Rio Blanco Counties, Craig, CO Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential for visibility impacts to the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness and Black Canyon Class I areas and potential adverse impacts to water quality and the sagebrush ecosystem. The Final EIS should include measures to address potential ozone impacts, avoid visibility impairment, and the use of phased development to mitigate impacts to areas with high wildlife and scenic value. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20080413, ERP No. D–FHW– K40269–CA, Mid County Parkway Project, Construct a New Parkway between Interstate 15 (I–15) in the West and State Route 79 (SR–79) in the East, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit, Riverside County, CA Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to environmental justice communities and the lack of sufficient mobile source air toxics analysis to inform decisions regarding alternatives, design, and mitigation. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20080441, ERP No. D–FHW– L40236–OR, Sellwood Bridge Project, Rehabilitate or Replace the Bridge Crosses the Willamette River on Southeast Tacoma Street and Oregon State Highway 43, Funding, Multnomah County, OR Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed project. Rating LO. EIS No. 20080448, ERP No. D–NPS– K61169–AZ, Fire Management Plan, Management of Wildland and Prescribed Fire, Protection of Human Life and Property Restoration and Maintenance of Fire Dependent Ecosystems, and Reduction of Hazardous Fuels, Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino County, AZ Summary: EPA does not object to the Preferred Alternative. Rating LO. EIS No. 20080486, ERP No. D–AFS– L65561–AK, Logjam Timber Sale Project, Proposes Timber Harvesting from 4 Land Use Designations, Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Prince Wales Island, AK VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:38 Feb 12, 2009 Jkt 217001 Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential for adverse impacts to aquatic and wildlife resources from road construction, ground-based harvest methods, stream crossings, and cumulative effects from past timber harvest activities. EPA recommends the selection of an alternative that minimizes these impacts. Rating EC1. EIS No. 20080497, ERP No. D–STA– F03012–00, Alberta Clipper Pipeline Project, Application for a Presidential Permit to Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Facilities in ND, MN and WI Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to waters and wetlands, and recommended that the final EIS consider additional alternatives and identify additional mitigation measures, including voluntary upland forest mitigation and strategies to reduce diesel emissions during construction. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20080401, ERP No. DS–FHW– L40186–OR, Sunrise Project, Proposes to Build a New East-West Oriented, Limited-Access Highway between I– 205 to Rock Creek Junction, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit, Clackamas County, Oregon Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the impacts to locally important habitats and open space, as well as wetlands. Furthermore, EPA has concerns regarding environmental justice, stimulated travel and growth effects, air toxics and greenhouse gas emissions, ground water resources, and water quality and quantity impacts that could affect threatened fish species. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20080475, ERP No. DS–FHW– K50015–CA, Schuyler Heim Bridge Replacement and SR–47 Expressway Improvement Project, New Information related to Health Risk Associated with Air Toxics, Funding, U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit, US Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the proposed projects air quality impacts. Rating EC2. Final EISs EIS No. 20080505, ERP No. F–FHW– F40415–IN, U.S. 31 Improvement Project (I–465 to IN–38), between I– 465 North Leg and IN–38, NPDES Permit and US Army Section 10 and 404 Permits, Hamilton County, IN PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7229 Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. EIS No. 20080507, ERP No. F–FHW– K40265–CA, CA–76 Corridor Project, Transportation Improvements from Melrose Drive to South Mission Road, San Diego County, CA Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts from mobile source air toxics. EIS No. 20080510, ERP No. F–STB– F53019–00, Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad (Finance Docket No. 35087) Proposed Acquisition by Canadian National (CN) Railway and Grand Trunk Corporation to connect all Five of CN’s Rail lines, Chicago, Illinois and Gary, Indiana Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the noise impacts, impacts to wetlands, and insufficient assessments of natural resources, long-term rail operations, and indirect and cumulative impacts. EIS No. 20080514, ERP No. F–AFS– L65551–ID, Corralled Bear Project, Management of Vegetation, Hazardous Fuels, and Access, Plus Watershed Improvements, Palouse Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest, Latah County, ID Summary: EPA does not object to the selected action. EIS No. 20080515, ERP No. F–BLM– J65507–WY, West Antelope Coal Lease Application (Federal Coal Lease Application WYW163340), Implementation, Converse and Campbell Counties, WY Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about air quality impacts. Dated: February 10, 2009. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E9–3139 Filed 2–12–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–8590–4] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–1399 or https://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/. Weekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 02/02/2009 Through 02/06/2009 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 20090033, Final Supplement, COE, AR, Fourche Bayou Basin E:\FR\FM\13FEN1.SGM 13FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 29 (Friday, February 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7228-7229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-3139]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8590-5]


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.

[[Page 7229]]

    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. 20070046, ERP No. D-BLM-J65476-CO, Little Snake Resource 
Management Plan, Implementation, Moffat, Routt and Rio Blanco Counties, 
Craig, CO

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential 
for visibility impacts to the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness and Black Canyon 
Class I areas and potential adverse impacts to water quality and the 
sagebrush ecosystem. The Final EIS should include measures to address 
potential ozone impacts, avoid visibility impairment, and the use of 
phased development to mitigate impacts to areas with high wildlife and 
scenic value. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080413, ERP No. D-FHW-K40269-CA, Mid County Parkway Project, 
Construct a New Parkway between Interstate 15 (I-15) in the West and 
State Route 79 (SR-79) in the East, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 
Permit, Riverside County, CA

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to 
environmental justice communities and the lack of sufficient mobile 
source air toxics analysis to inform decisions regarding alternatives, 
design, and mitigation. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080441, ERP No. D-FHW-L40236-OR, Sellwood Bridge Project, 
Rehabilitate or Replace the Bridge Crosses the Willamette River on 
Southeast Tacoma Street and Oregon State Highway 43, Funding, Multnomah 
County, OR

    Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed project. Rating LO.

EIS No. 20080448, ERP No. D-NPS-K61169-AZ, Fire Management Plan, 
Management of Wildland and Prescribed Fire, Protection of Human Life 
and Property Restoration and Maintenance of Fire Dependent Ecosystems, 
and Reduction of Hazardous Fuels, Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino 
County, AZ

    Summary: EPA does not object to the Preferred Alternative. Rating 
LO.

EIS No. 20080486, ERP No. D-AFS-L65561-AK, Logjam Timber Sale Project, 
Proposes Timber Harvesting from 4 Land Use Designations, Tongass Land 
and Resource Management Plan, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass 
National Forest, Prince Wales Island, AK

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential 
for adverse impacts to aquatic and wildlife resources from road 
construction, ground-based harvest methods, stream crossings, and 
cumulative effects from past timber harvest activities. EPA recommends 
the selection of an alternative that minimizes these impacts. Rating 
EC1.

EIS No. 20080497, ERP No. D-STA-F03012-00, Alberta Clipper Pipeline 
Project, Application for a Presidential Permit to Construction, 
Operation and Maintenance of Facilities in ND, MN and WI

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to 
waters and wetlands, and recommended that the final EIS consider 
additional alternatives and identify additional mitigation measures, 
including voluntary upland forest mitigation and strategies to reduce 
diesel emissions during construction. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080401, ERP No. DS-FHW-L40186-OR, Sunrise Project, Proposes 
to Build a New East-West Oriented, Limited-Access Highway between I-205 
to Rock Creek Junction, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit, 
Clackamas County, Oregon

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the impacts to 
locally important habitats and open space, as well as wetlands. 
Furthermore, EPA has concerns regarding environmental justice, 
stimulated travel and growth effects, air toxics and greenhouse gas 
emissions, ground water resources, and water quality and quantity 
impacts that could affect threatened fish species. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080475, ERP No. DS-FHW-K50015-CA, Schuyler Heim Bridge 
Replacement and SR-47 Expressway Improvement Project, New Information 
related to Health Risk Associated with Air Toxics, Funding, U.S. Coast 
Guard Bridge Permit, US Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Ports of 
Long Beach and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, CA

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the proposed 
projects air quality impacts. Rating EC2.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20080505, ERP No. F-FHW-F40415-IN, U.S. 31 Improvement Project 
(I-465 to IN-38), between I-465 North Leg and IN-38, NPDES Permit and 
US Army Section 10 and 404 Permits, Hamilton County, IN

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project.

EIS No. 20080507, ERP No. F-FHW-K40265-CA, CA-76 Corridor Project, 
Transportation Improvements from Melrose Drive to South Mission Road, 
San Diego County, CA

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts from 
mobile source air toxics.

EIS No. 20080510, ERP No. F-STB-F53019-00, Elgin, Joliet & Eastern 
Railroad (Finance Docket No. 35087) Proposed Acquisition by Canadian 
National (CN) Railway and Grand Trunk Corporation to connect all Five 
of CN's Rail lines, Chicago, Illinois and Gary, Indiana

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the noise 
impacts, impacts to wetlands, and insufficient assessments of natural 
resources, long-term rail operations, and indirect and cumulative 
impacts.

EIS No. 20080514, ERP No. F-AFS-L65551-ID, Corralled Bear Project, 
Management of Vegetation, Hazardous Fuels, and Access, Plus Watershed 
Improvements, Palouse Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest, 
Latah County, ID

    Summary: EPA does not object to the selected action.

EIS No. 20080515, ERP No. F-BLM-J65507-WY, West Antelope Coal Lease 
Application (Federal Coal Lease Application WYW163340), Implementation, 
Converse and Campbell Counties, WY

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about air quality 
impacts.

    Dated: February 10, 2009.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9-3139 Filed 2-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.