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

1PM10 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 PM10

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 PM10 Maintenance Plan for the 

Lamar Attainment/Maintenance Area’’ 

and its motor vehicle emissions budget, 

and the ‘‘Revised PM10 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 (PM10): The State submitted the 

‘‘Revised PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 second 

10-year maintenance plan and the 2025 

PM10 MVEB were adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

Steamboat Springs (PM10): The State 

submitted the ‘‘Revised PM10

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 PM10 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 PM10 second 10-year 

maintenance plan and the 2024 PM10

MVEB were adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

For the Lamar PM10 maintenance area, 

the MVEB we found adequate is 764 

pounds of PM10 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 

PM10 maintenance area. For the 

Steamboat Springs PM10 maintenance 

area, the MVEB we found adequate is 

1,103 pounds of PM10 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 PM10 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/. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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 Applying 

Quantitative 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 Applying 

Quantitative 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-based 

pharmacokinetic 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES