### 59767 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Notices

1 PM 10 refers to particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.

Dated: September 26, 2014. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–23528 Filed 10–2–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6717–01–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0236; FRL–9917–35– Region–8]** 

**Adequacy Determination for Lamar and Steamboat Springs PM**  10 **Maintenance Plans’ Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation**  **Conformity Purposes; State of Colorado** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Notice of adequacy.

**SUMMARY :**  In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the public that the Agency has found the following adequate for transportation conformity purposes: The ‘‘Revised PM 10 Maintenance Plan for the Lamar Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ and its motor vehicle emissions budget, and the ‘‘Revised PM 10 Maintenance Plan for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ and its motor vehicle emissions budget. As more fully explained in the Supplementary Information section of this notice, this finding will affect future transportation conformity determinations.

**DATES :**  This finding is effective on October 20, 2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Tim Russ, Air Program, Mailcode 8P–AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, telephone number (303) 312–6479, fax number (303) 312–6064, or email russ.tim@
epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ are used, we mean EPA. Whenever ‘‘State’’ is used, we mean the State of Colorado.

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The conformity rule provisions at 40 CFR 93 require that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) and establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP revision’s motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) is adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was promulgated August 15, 1997 (62 FR 43780). We described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP MVEBs in our July 1, 2004 Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments (69 FR 40004). We used these resources in making our adequacy determinations announced in this notice.

This notice is simply an announcement of findings that we have already made and are as described below:

Lamar (PM 10): The State submitted the ‘‘Revised PM 10 Maintenance Plan for the Lamar Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ 1 on May 13, 2013. The State prepared the submittal to meet the requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 10-year maintenance plan. We posted the ‘‘Revised PM 10 Maintenance Plan for the Lamar Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ for adequacy review on EPA’s transportation conformity Web site on November 15, 2013. The public comment period closed on December 16, 2013, and we did not receive any comments in response to the adequacy review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/ otaq/stateresources/transconf/ currsips.htm#lamar-co). EPA sent a letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on January 23, 2014, stating that the submitted Lamar PM 10 second 10-year maintenance plan and the 2025 PM 10 MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

Steamboat Springs (PM 10): The State submitted the ‘‘Revised PM 10 Maintenance Plan for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ on May 11, 2012. The State prepared the submittal to meet the requirements of section 175A(b) of the CAA for a second 10-year maintenance plan. We posted the ‘‘Revised PM 10 Maintenance Plan for the Steamboat Springs Attainment/ Maintenance Area’’ for adequacy review on EPA’s transportation conformity Web site on November 15, 2013. The public comment period closed on December 16, 2013, and we did not receive any comments in response to the adequacy review posting (see http://www.epa.gov/ otaq/stateresources/transconf/ currsips.htm#steam-spr-co). EPA sent a letter to the CDPHE on January 23, 2014, stating that the submitted Steamboat Springs PM 10 second 10-year maintenance plan and the 2024 PM 10 MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

For the Lamar PM 10 maintenance area, the MVEB we found adequate is 764 pounds of PM 10 per day in 2025. Following the effective date listed in the

**DATES** section of this notice, the Colorado Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation are required to use this motor vehicle emissions budget for future transportation conformity determinations for projects in the Lamar PM 10 maintenance area. For the Steamboat Springs PM 10 maintenance area, the MVEB we found adequate is 1,103 pounds of PM 10 per day in 2024. Following the effective date listed in the

**DATES** section of this notice, the Colorado Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation are required to use this motor vehicle emissions budget for future transportation conformity determinations for projects in the Steamboat Springs PM 10 maintenance

area.

Please note that our adequacy review described above is separate from our rulemaking action on the two maintenance plans discussed above and should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval or disapproval of each of the SIP revisions. Even if we find a maintenance plan and its MVEB adequate for transportation conformity purposes now, we may later find it necessary to disapprove the SIP revision. Should this situation arise, we would then revisit our adequacy finding.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 4, 2014. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2014–23636 Filed 10–2–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[ER–FRL–9017–3]**

**Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability** 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202)
564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/.


### 59768 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 192 / Friday, October 3, 2014 / Notices

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements Filed 09/22/2014 Through 09/26/2014 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

Notice

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters on EISs are available at: http:// www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/ eisdata.html. EIS No. 20140282, Final EIS, NPS, TX,

Big Thicket National Preserve Final General Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 11/03/2014, Contact: Doug Neighbor 409–951–6801. EIS No. 20140283, Final EIS, NPS, TX,

Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument General Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 11/03/2014, Contact: Arlene Wimer 806–857–0309. EIS No. 20140284, Draft Supplement,

FHWA, VA, U.S. Route 460 Corridor, Comment Period Ends: 11/17/2014, Contact: Edward S. Sundra, 804–775– 3357. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Virginia Department of Transportation are joint lead agencies for the above project. EIS No. 20140285, Final EIS, USFS, CA,

California Pacific Electricity Company 625 and 650 Electrical Line Upgrade Project, Review Period Ends: 11/03/ 2014, Contact: Robert Rodman 530–
543–2613. EIS No. 20140286, Draft EIS, USFS, CA,

Jess Project, Klamath National Forest, Comment Period Ends: 11/17/2014, Contact: Angie Bell 530–842–6131. EIS No. 20140287, Draft EIS, USFS, WA,

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Invasive Plant Management, Comment Period Ends: 11/17/2014, Contact: Phyllis Reed
360–436–2332. EIS No. 20140288, Draft EIS, BPA, OR,

WA, Walla Walla Basin Spring Chinook Hatchery Program, Comment Period Ends: 11/24/2014, Contact: Donald L. Rose 503–230–3796.

Amended Notices EIS No. 20140198, Draft EIS, NMFS,

WA, Two Joint State and Tribal Resource Management Plans for Puget Sound Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery Programs, Comment Period Ends: 11/24/2014, Contact: Steve Leider 360–753–4650. Revision to the FR Notice Published 07/25/2014; Extending the Comment Period from 10/23/2014 to 11/24/2014. EIS No. 20140236, Final EIS, USACE, WA, Lower Snake River Programmatic Sediment Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 09/22/2014, Contact: Sandra Shelin 509–527–7265. Revision to FR Notice Published 09/ 26/2014; Correction to the Review Period, which ended on 09/22/2014 and not 09/29/2014.
Dated: September 30, 2014. Cliff Rader, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014–23639 Filed 10–2–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[EPA–HQ–ORD–2014; FRL–9917–45–ORD]**

**Notice of Availability of Guidance for Applying Quantitative Data To Develop**  **Data-Derived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies**  **Extrapolation**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Notice of availability.

**SUMMARY :**  This notice announces the availability of Guidance for ApplyingQuantitative Data to Develop DataDerived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation (DDEF Guidance). This document lays out methods for calculation of factors compensating for the application of animal toxicity data to humans (interspecies) and for compensating for sensitive populations (intraspecies). The use of data to conduct these extrapolations rather than rely on default values advances EPA’s policy of considering relevant data first when conducting its chemical
assessments.

**DATES :**  The document will be available October 3, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  The Guidance for ApplyingQuantitative Data to Develop DataDerived Extrapolation Factors for Interspecies and Intraspecies Extrapolation is available at the EPA Web site http://www.epa.gov/raf/DDEF/ index.htm.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Dr. Michael Broder, Office of the Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105R, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 564– 3393; fax number (202) 564–2070; or email: broder.michael@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Historically, EPA has employed default uncertainty factors in its computation of toxicity values (e.g., reference concentrations [RfC] and reference doses [RfD]) to compensate for an absence of data. Default uncertainty factors have historically been based on policy or regulatory positions rather than on empirical data applicable to the chemical of interest. Among the uncertainty factors used in EPA assessments are those compensating for a lack of information on how well animal models used in toxicity studies mimic humans (interspecies) and differences in response between the majority of the population (central tendency) compared with the sensitive individual (intraspecies). With the publication of An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices ‘‘Staff Paper’’ published in 2004, and EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 2005, the Agency announced its policy of considering all relevant data before applying default values.

In 2011 EPA published Recommended Use of Body Weight3 ⁄ 4 as the Default Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose. In that guidance EPA listed the optimal approach as using a physiologically-basedpharmacokinetic or other biologicallybased model with the default approach using the ratio of body weights raised to the 3 ⁄ 4 power. The DDEF Guidance lays out a computational process for using chemical-specific data on toxicokinetics (adsorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion) and toxicodynamics (response of the tissue to the active form of the agent).

It should be noted that the DDEF Guidance is the first EPA product to provide a method both for quantitative determination of relative sensitivity of the pharmacodynamic response in an assessment and for empirical determination of intraspecies sensitivity. As such, this method provides a valuable tool for identifying and quantifying sensitive populations and lifestages.

Dated: August 21, 2014. Robert Kavlock,

Interim EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2014–23637 Filed 10–2–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**