44948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 146 / Friday, July 30, 2010 / Notices 

1 60 FR 19811 (April 22, 2003). 

The Applicant proposes to make no 

more than two applications of Movento 

(22.4% spirotetramat) on a maximum of 

275 acres of dry bulb onions between 

July and September in Minnesota. Total 

amount of pesticide to be used is 2,750 

fluid ounces of movento (44 lbs of 

spirotetramat). 

This notice does not constitute a 

decision by EPA on the application 

itself but provides an opportunity for 

public comment on the application. 

EPA has determined that publication of 

a notice of receipt of this application for 

a specific exemption is appropriate, 

taking into consideration that the 

registration of the spirotetramat product 

that is the subject of this emergency 

exemption request was recently 

cancelled as a result of the December 23, 

2009 decision of the U.S. District Court 

for the Southern District of New York 

vacating its registration on procedural 

grounds. The vacatur decision is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket ID 

Number 2010–0178. 

The notice provides an opportunity for 

public comment on the application. 

The Agency will review and consider 

all comments received during the 

comment period in determining 

whether to issue the specific exemption 

requested by the Minnesota Department 

of Agriculture. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Pesticides 

and pests. 

Dated: July 21, 2010. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18777 Filed 7–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9183–3] 

California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Withinthe-Scope Determination for 

Amendments to California’s Low 

Emission Vehicle Program; Notice of 

Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of within-the-scope 

determination. 

SUMMARY: EPA is confirming that 

technical amendments promulgated by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) are within-the-scope of existing 

waivers of preemption for CARB’s Low 

Emission Vehicle (LEV II) program. 

These technical amendments were 

adopted by CARB in 2006, and include 

amendments to California’s evaporative 

emission test procedures, onboard 

refueling vapor recovery and spitback 

test procedures, exhaust emission test 

procedures, and vehicle emission 

control label requirements. These 

amendments align each of California’s 

test procedures and label requirements 

with its federal counterpart, in an effort 

to streamline and harmonize the 

California and federal programs. 

California believes these amendments 

will reduce manufacturer testing 

burdens and increase in-use 

compliance, without compromising the 

stringency of its numerical LEV II 

emission standards. 

DATES: Any objections to the findings in 

this notice regarding EPA’s 

determination, that California’s 

amendments are within-the-scope of 

previous waivers, must be filed by 

August 30, 2010. Upon receipt of a 

timely objection, EPA will consider 

scheduling a public hearing to 

reconsider these findings, which would 

be announced in a subsequent Federal 

Register notice. Otherwise, these 

findings will become final on September 

28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Any objections to the 

within-the-scope findings in this 

Federal Register notice should be filed 

with Kristien Knapp at the address 

noted below. All documents relied upon 

in making this decision, including those 

submitted to EPA by CARB, are 

contained in the public docket. 

EPA has established a docket for this 

action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0238. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

to the public on all federal government 

work days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; 

generally, it is open Monday through 

Friday, excluding holidays. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is (202) 566–1744. The Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center’s Web site is http://www.epa.gov/ 

oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation 

Docket is: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov, the 

telephone number is (202) 566–1742, 

and the fax number is (202) 566–9744. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through the federal 

government’s electronic public docket 

and comment system. You may access 

EPA dockets at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. After opening the 

www.regulations.gov Web site, enter 

EPA HQ–OAR–2010–0238 in the ‘‘Enter 

Keyword or ID’’ fill-in box to view 

documents in the record of CARB’s LEV 

II technical amendments within-thescope waiver request. Although a part of 

the official docket, the public docket 

does not include Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

EPA’s Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality also maintains a webpage 

that contains general information on its 

review of California waiver requests. 

Included on that page are links to 

several of the prior waiver Federal 

Register notices which are cited 

throughout today’s notice; the page can 

be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

cafr.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristien Knapp, Compliance and 

Innovative Strategies Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue (6405J), NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: 

(202) 343–9949. Fax: (202) 343–2800. Email: knapp.kristien@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. CARB’s 2006 Technical Amendments 

On April 30, 2007, CARB submitted a 

request to EPA for confirmation that 

CARB’s 2006 Technical Amendments to 

California’s LEV II program are withinthe-scope of previously granted waivers 

of preemption. CARB’s 2006 Technical 

Amendments generally include 

amendments to its evaporative emission 

test procedures, four-wheel drive 

dynamometer provisions, and vehicle 

label requirements. Each of these 

general areas amends previously 

promulgated—and waived— 

amendments to CARB’s LEV II program. 

CARB originally received a waiver of 

preemption for its LEV II program from 

EPA on April 22, 2003.1 The LEV II 

program itself exists as the result of a 

series of amendments to California’s 

older LEV I program. The LEV II 

program set stringent evaporative 

emission standards and test procedures 

beginning with the 2004 model year. 

California subsequently enacted two 

sets of ‘‘follow-up’’ amendments to its 

LEV II program. The first set of followup amendments established exhaust 

emission standards and test procedures 

for light-duty and medium-duty 

gasoline-fueled vehicles. The following 

set of follow-up amendments revised 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 146 / Friday, July 30, 2010 / Notices 44949 

2 70 FR 22034 (April 28, 2005). 

3 68 FR 77 (April 22, 2003), 70 FR 22034 (April 

28, 2005). See also 67 FR 162 (August 21, 2002) 

(EPA’s waiver for California’s onboard refueling 

vapor recovery standards and procedures, which 

pre-existed and were modified by CARB’s second 

set of LEV II follow-up amendments.). 

4 70 FR 72917 (December 8, 2005). 

5CARB, ‘‘Resolution 06–20,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0238–0006. 

6CARB, Waiver Support Document, EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0238–0002 at pp. 4–8. 

7See CARB, ‘‘Final Regulation Order,’’ EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0238–0008. 

8See CARB, Attachment 7, EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0238–0009. 

9See S. Rep. No. 90–403 at 632 (1967). 

10CAA section 209(b)(1)(A). 

11CAA section 209(b)(1)(B). 

12CAA section 209(b)(1)(C). 

13See, e.g., 74 FR at 32767 (July 8, 2009); see also 

Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association v. 

EPA (MEMA I), 627 F.2d 1095, 1126 (DC Cir. 1979). 

14CARB, ‘‘Resolution 06–20,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0238–0006, pp. 4–5. 

15 68 FR 19812 (April 22, 2003). See also EPA’s 

LEV II Waiver Decision Document at pp. 9–11 

(‘‘EPA did not receive any comments stating that 

CARB’s LEV II requirement are not, in the aggregate, 

as stringent as applicable federal standards. 

Therefore, based on the record before me, I cannot 

find that CARB’s LEV II regulations, as noted, 

would cause the California motor vehicle emission 

standards, in the aggregate, to be less protective of 

Continued 

vehicle labeling provisions and 

refueling emission standards and test 

procedures. Both sets of follow-up 

amendments were determined by EPA 

to be within-the-scope of previous 

waivers on April 28, 2005.2 CARB 

presents that its 2006 Technical 

Amendments are within-the-scope of 

EPA’s LEV II waiver, and EPA’s withinthe-scope confirmation for California’s 

LEV II follow-up amendments.3

CARB’s 2006 Technical Amendments 

directly incorporate a direct final rule 

issued by EPA on December 8, 2005,4 in 

order to streamline California’s exhaust, 

evaporative, and refueling test 

procedures to the corresponding federal 

procedures. CARB considered and 

approved the 2006 Technical 

Amendments at a June 22, 2006 hearing 

by adopting Resolution 06–20; 5 the 

technical amendments became effective 

California state law on February 17, 

2007, pending EPA’s waiver review. 

CARB believes its effort to harmonize its 

procedures with EPA’s procedures in 

the 2006 Technical Amendments will 

reduce manufacturer testing burdens 

and compliance requirements without 

compromising the stringency or efficacy 

of its numerical emission standards. 

CARB’s 2006 Technical Amendments 

affect only evaporative emission test 

procedures and not the underlying 

standards. Specifically, the 2006 

Technical Amendments: (1) Authorize 

manufacturers to opt to certify new 

vehicles to the Two-Day Diurnal plus 

Hot Soak (2D+HS) test sequence on the 

basis of an engineering judgment; (2) 

clarify that when a manufacturer has 

certified vehicles using an alternative 

running loss test procedure, CARB may 

conduct certification confirmatory tests 

and in-use compliance tests using either 

the specified procedures or that 

manufacturer’s approved alternative 

running loss test procedure; (3) provide 

manufacturers an option to use an 

alternative canister preconditioning 

method; (4) clarify that only one 

evaporative test demonstration is 

required for all applicable fuel types of 

each evaporative/refueling family; (5) 

modify the Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery (ORVR) requirements to make 

optional the disconnection of the 

canister and fuel tank-vent hose 

assembly when the drain-and-tenpercent-fill step of the refueling test 

sequence is performed; (6) include 

several minor, non-substantive 

amendments to maintain federal 

harmonization; (7) modify existing test 

procedures to allow a manufacturer to 

perform certification emission tests of 

four-wheel drive (4WD) vehicles on 

4WD dynamometers; (8) eliminate the 

requirement that manufacturers include 

certain outdated information on their 

vehicle labels.6 These changes amend 

title 13, California Code of Regulations 

(CCR), sections 1961, 1976, and 1978; 7

these three amended code sections 

incorporate by reference three 

contemporaneously amended test 

procedure documents.8

B. Clean Air Act Waivers of Preemption 

Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act 

preempts states and local governments 

from setting emission standards for new 

motor vehicles and engines; it provides: 

No State or any political subdivision 

thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any 

standard relating to the control of emissions 

from new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines subject to this part. No state 

shall require certification, inspection or any 

other approval relating to the control of 

emissions from any new motor vehicle or 

new motor vehicle engine as condition 

precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if 

any), or registration of such motor vehicle, 

motor vehicle engine, or equipment. 

Through operation of section 209(b) of 

the Act, California is able to seek and 

receive a waiver of section 209(a)’s 

preemption. If certain criteria are met, 

section 209(b)(1) of the Act requires the 

Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, to waive 

application of the prohibitions of 

section 209(a). Section 209(b)(1) only 

allows a waiver to be granted for any 

State that had adopted standards (other 

than crankcase emission standards) for 

the control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles or new motor vehicle engines 

prior to March 30, 1966, if the State 

determines that its standards will be, in 

the aggregate, at least as protective of 

public health and welfare as applicable 

Federal standards (this is known as 

California’s ‘‘protectiveness 

determination’’). Because California was 

the only state to have adopted standards 

prior to 1966, it is the only state that is 

qualified to seek and receive a waiver.9

The Administrator must grant a waiver 

unless she finds that: (A) California’s 

above-noted ‘‘protectiveness 

determination’’ is arbitrary and 

capricious; 10 (B) California does not 

need such State standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions; 11 or (C) California’s 

standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 202(a) of the 

Act.12 EPA has previously stated that 

consistency with section 202(a) requires 

that California’s standards must be 

technologically feasible within the lead 

time provided, given due consideration 

of costs, and that California and 

applicable Federal test procedures be 

consistent.13

If California amends regulations that 

were previously granted a waiver of 

preemption, EPA can confirm that the 

amended regulations are within-thescope of the previously granted waiver 

if three conditions are met. First, the 

amended regulations must not 

undermine California’s determination 

that its standards, in the aggregate, are 

as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards. 

Second, the amended regulations must 

not affect consistency with section 

202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended 

regulations must not raise any ‘‘new 

issues’’ affecting EPA’s prior waivers. 

II. Discussion 

As stated above, EPA can confirm that 

amended regulations are within-thescope of a previously granted waiver if 

three conditions are met. CARB, in its 

Resolution 06–20, expressly found that 

its 2006 Technical Amendments met 

each of these criteria.14

A. California’s Protectiveness 

Determination 

When granting a waiver for CARB’s 

LEV II amendments, which established 

the LEV II standards at the heart of the 

LEV II program, EPA declined to find 

that California’s protectiveness 

determination was arbitrary and 

capricious.15 The protectiveness 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
44950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 146 / Friday, July 30, 2010 / Notices 

public health and welfare than applicable Federal 

standards.’’) (citation omitted). 

16CARB, ‘‘Waiver Support Document,’’ EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0238–0002 at 11. 

17 Id. 

18See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010); 70 

FR 22034 (April 28, 2005). 

19CARB, ‘‘Waiver Support Document,’’ EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0238–0002 at 12. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22CARB, ‘‘Resolution 06–20,’’ EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0238–0006 at 3. 23See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010); 70 

FR 22034 (April 28, 2005). 24CARB, ‘‘Waiver Support Document,’’ EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0238–0002 at 13. 25 Id. 

determination at issue in the original 

LEV II proceeding was based upon a 

comparison of California’s LEV II 

emission standards, as amended by the 

LEV II follow-up amendments, to 

federal Tier 2 standards. CARB notes 

that its LEV II-to-Tier 2 comparison 

showed that LEV II standards were more 

stringent than the applicable federal 

Tier 2 standards, particularly taking into 

account CARB’s more stringent NOX

standards for the 2007 through 2010 

model years and CARB’s more stringent 

evaporative emission standards.16 CARB 

also notes that the LEV II follow-up 

amendments increased the 

protectiveness of California’s LEV II 

program by ensuring that federal 

vehicles that are cleaner than their 

California counterparts would be 

certified in California.17

CARB’s 2006 Technical Amendments 

do not increase or decrease the 

stringency of the LEV II standards; they 

only affect test procedures and label 

requirements, in an effort to harmonize 

California compliance requirements 

with federal compliance requirements. 

We see no reason to think that 

application of compliance requirements 

that mirror federally-promulgated 

compliance requirements would 

undermine—rather than reinforce— 

California’s protectiveness 

determination. 

After reviewing the materials 

submitted by CARB, EPA can confirm 

that the 2006 Technical Amendments 

do not undermine California’s previous 

determination that its standards, in the 

aggregate, are as protective of public 

health and welfare as applicable federal 

standards. 

B. Consistency With Section 202(a) of 

the Clean Air Act 

EPA has stated in the past that 

California standards and accompanying 

test procedures would be inconsistent 

with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 

if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to 

permit the development of technology 

necessary to meet those requirements, 

giving appropriate consideration to cost 

of compliance within the lead time 

provided, or (2) the federal and 

California test procedures impose 

inconsistent certification 

requirements.18

The first prong of EPA’s inquiry into 

consistency with section 202(a) of the 

Act depends upon technological 

feasibility. This requires EPA to 

determine whether adequate technology 

already exists; or if it does not, whether 

there is adequate time to develop and 

apply the technology before the 

standards go into effect. CARB points 

out that in the course of its rulemaking, 

no manufacturer raised any lead time 

concerns.19 Additionally, CARB notes 

that these procedures have already been 

promulgated and applied by EPA. 

Consequently, EPA cannot identify any 

lead time issue posed by application of 

procedures that are already used for 

federal compliance.20 We find that 

adequate technology already exists. 

The second prong of EPA’s inquiry 

into consistency with section 202(a) of 

the Act depends on the compatibility of 

the federal and California test 

procedures. CARB points out, again 

here, that its technical amendments are 

designed to harmonize its test 

procedures with federal test 

procedures.21 In fact, CARB found that 

without the technical amendments, 

inconsistent test procedures would 

exist.22 EPA agrees with this analysis; 

because identical test procedures cannot 

be incompatible, we cannot find that 

California’s test procedures are 

inconsistent with our own. 

For those reasons, EPA can confirm 

that the 2006 Technical Amendments 

are not inconsistent with section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act. 

C. New Issues 

EPA has stated that if CARB 

amendments raise ‘‘new issues’’ affecting 

previously granted waivers, we cannot 

confirm that those amendments are 

within-the-scope of previous waivers.23

Here, CARB determined that there are 

no new issues presented by CARB’s 

2006 Technical Amendments.24 CARB 

notes that in the course of its 

rulemaking, it received only two public 

comments: One comment from a 

manufacturer in support and one 

comment unrelated to the rulemaking.25

After our own review of CARB’s 2006 

Technical Amendments, EPA is 

similarly unable to identify any new 

issues. 

III. Decision 

CARB’s April 30, 2007 letter seeks 

confirmation from EPA that CARB’s 

2006 Technical Amendments to 

California’s LEV II program are withinthe-scope of previous waivers of 

preemption that EPA has granted. After 

evaluating the 2006 Technical 

Amendments, EPA confirms that CARB 

meets the three criteria that EPA 

traditionally uses to determine whether 

a present request from California is 

within-the-scope of previous waivers. 

First, EPA agrees with CARB that the 

technical amendments do not 

undermine California’s protectiveness 

determination from its previous LEV II 

waiver requests. Second, EPA agrees 

with CARB that its 2006 Technical 

Amendments are not inconsistent with 

section 202(a) of the Act. Third, EPA 

agrees with CARB that its 2006 

Technical Amendments do not present 

any ‘‘new issues,’’ which would affect its 

previous waivers. Therefore, EPA 

confirms that CARB’s 2006 Technical 

Amendments are within-the-scope of 

EPA’s waivers of preemption for 

California’s LEV II program. 

The Administrator has delegated the 

authority to grant California a section 

209(b) waiver of preemption to the 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. Having given consideration 

to all the material submitted for this 

record, and other relevant information, 

I find that I cannot make the 

determinations required for a denial of 

a waiver pursuant to section 209(b) of 

the Act. EPA’s analysis confirms 

CARB’s finding that these amendments 

meet the criteria for receiving a withinthe-scope determination; therefore, EPA 

finds that the 2006 Technical 

Amendments are within-the-scope of 

previous waivers for California’s LEV II 

program. 

Because these amendments are 

within-the-scope of a previous waiver, a 

public hearing to consider them is not 

necessary. However, if any party asserts 

an objection to these findings by August 

30, 2010, EPA will consider holding a 

public hearing to provide interested 

parties an opportunity to present oral 

testimony and written evidence to show 

that there are issues to be addressed 

through a section 209(b) waiver 

proceeding and that EPA should 

reconsider its findings. Otherwise, these 

findings will become final on September 

28, 2010. 

My decision will affect not only 

persons in California, but also 

manufacturers outside the State who 

must comply with California’s 

requirements in order to produce 

engines for sale in California. For this 

reason, I determine and find that this is 

a final action of national applicability 

for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the 

Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 146 / Friday, July 30, 2010 / Notices 44951 

Act, judicial review of this final action 

may be sought only in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review 

must be filed by September 28, 2010. 

Judicial review of this final action may 

not be obtained in subsequent 

enforcement proceedings, pursuant to 

section 307(b)(2) of the Act. 

As with past authorization and waiver 

decisions, this action is not a rule as 

defined by Executive Order 12866. 

Therefore, it is exempt from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget as 

required for rules and regulations by 

Executive Order 12866. 

In addition, this action is not a rule 

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has 

not prepared a supporting regulatory 

flexibility analysis addressing the 

impact of this action on small business 

entities. 

Further, the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does 

not apply because this action is not a 

rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). 

Dated: July 22, 2010. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18791 Filed 7–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8991–8] 

Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–1399 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly Receipt of Environmental 

Impact Statements 

Filed 07/19/2010 Through 07/23/2010 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 

EIS No. 20100273, Final EIS, BLM, UT, 

West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas 

Full Field Development Plan, Develop 

the Natural Gas Resource on Leased 

and Unleased Lands, Carbon County, 

UT, Wait Period Ends: 08/30/2010, 

Contact: Tyler Ashcraft 435–636– 

3600. 

EIS No. 20100274, Draft EIS, BLM, UT, 

Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP 

(KMG), Proposes to Conduit Infill 

Drilling to Develop the Hydrocarbon 

Resources Oil and Gas Leases, 

Application for Permit to Drill and 

Approval Right-of-Way Grants, Uintah 

County, UT, Comment Period Ends: 

09/13/2010, Contact: Stephanie 

Howard 435–781–4400. 

EIS No. 20100275, Final EIS, BLM, WY, 

Wright Area Coal Lease Project, 

Applications for Leasing Six Tracts of 

Federal Coal Reserves Adjacent to the 

Black Thunder, Jacob Ranch, and 

North Antelope Rochelle Mines, 

Wyoming Powder River Basin, 

Campbell County, WY, Wait Period 

Ends: 08/30/2010, Contact: Sarah 

Bucklin 307–261–7541. 

EIS No. 20100276, Final EIS, USFS, ID, 

Clear Prong Project, To Implement 

Silvicultural Activities, Including 

Thinning of Sub-Merchantable Trees, 

Prescribed Fires and Aspen 

Enhancement on 2,190 Acres, Bois 

National Forest, Cascade Ranger 

District, Valley County, ID, Wait 

Period Ends: 08/30/2010, Contact: 

Keith Dimmett 208–382–7400. 

EIS No. 20100277, Final EIS, FERC, 00, 

Apex Expansion Project, Proposal to 

Expand its Natural Gas Pipeline 

System, WY, UT and NV, Wait Period 

Ends: 08/30/2010, Contact: Mary 

O’Driscoll 1–866–208–3372. 

EIS No. 20100278, Final EIS, BLM, OR, 

Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Lands in Oregon, 

Implementation, OR, Wait Period 

Ends: 08/30/2010, Contact: Todd 

Thompson 503–808–6326. 

EIS No. 20100279, Final EIS, USAF, 00, 

Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and 

Resource Management Plan, Updated 

Information to Reanalyze the Effects 

of Current and Proposed Management 

on Rock Mountain Bighorn Sheep 

Viability in the Payette National 

Forest 2003 FEIS, Boise National 

Forest, Payette National Forest and 

Sawtooth National Forest, Forest Plan 

Revision, Implementation, Several 

Counties, ID; Malhaur County, OR 

and Box Elder County, UT, Wait 

Period Ends: 08/30/2010, Contact: 

Sue Dixon 208–634–0796. 

EIS No. 20100280, Draft EIS, STB, PA, 

R.J. Corman Railroad/Pennsylvania 

Lines Project, Construction, 

Operation, and Reactivation to 

Approximately 20 Miles of Railline in 

Clearfield and Centre Counties, PA, 

Comment Period Ends: 09/28/2010, 

Contact: Danielle Gosselin 202–245– 

0300. 

EIS No. 20100281, Draft EIS, FHWA, IN, 

I–69 Evansville to Indianapolis Tier 2 

Section 4 Project, From U.S. 231 

(Crane NSWC) to IN–37 South of 

Bloomington in Section 4, Greene and 

Monroe Counties, IN, Comment 

Period Ends: 09/28/2010, Contact: 

Janice Osadczuk 317–226–7486. 

EIS No. 20100282, Final EIS, WAPA, 

SD, South Dakota PrairieWinds 

Project, Proposes to Construct, Own, 

Operate, and Maintain a 151.5 

megawatt (MW) Nameplate Capacity 

Wind-Powered Generation Facility, 

Aurora, Brule, and Jerauld, Tripp 

Counties, SD, Wait Period Ends: 08/ 

30/2010, Contact: Liana Reilly 800– 

336–7288. 

Dated: July 27, 2010. 

Ken Mittelholtz, 

Deputy Director, NEPA Compliance Division, 

Office of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18802 Filed 7–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OECA–2010–0609; FRL–9181–3] 

Inquiry To Learn Whether Businesses 

Assert Business Confidentiality Claims 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) receives from time to time 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

requests for documentation received or 

issued by EPA or data contained in EPA 

database systems pertaining to the 

export and import of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

hazardous waste from/to the United 

States, the export of cathode ray tubes 

(CRTs) and Spent Lead Acid Batteries 

(SLABs) from the United States, and the 

export and import of RCRA universal 

waste from/to the United States. These 

documents and data may identify or 

reference multiple parties, and describe 

transactions involving the movement of 

specified materials in which the parties 

propose to participate or have 

participated. The purpose of this notice 

is to inform ‘‘affected businesses’’ about 

the documents or data sought by these 

types of FOIA requests in order to 

provide the businesses with the 

opportunity to assert claims that any of 

the information sought that pertains to 

them is entitled to treatment as 

confidential business information (CBI), 

and to send comments to EPA 

supporting their claims for such 

treatment. Certain businesses, however, 

do not meet the definition of ‘‘affected 

business,’’ and are not covered by 

today’s notice. They consist of any 

business that actually submitted to EPA 

any document at issue pursuant to 

applicable RCRA regulatory 

requirements and did not assert a CBI 

claim as to information that pertains to 

that business in connection with the 

document at the time of its submission; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES