Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices 19927 

to verify some limited vehicle 

information. Three of those who return 

the card are called and asked about a 

half dozen questions concerning vehicle 

condition, and operation and 

maintenance. Additional groups of 

potential participants may be contacted 

until a sufficient number of vehicles has 

been obtained. Owners verify the survey 

information when they deliver their 

vehicles to EPA, voluntarily provide 

maintenance records for copying, and 

receive a loaner car or a cash incentive. 

Procurement and testing are different 

for the heavy-duty and nonroad in-use 

testing program. All testing is done by 

installing ‘‘Rover’’ portable emissions 

monitoring devices on the vehicle or 

engine during a period of operation. 

Heavy-duty trucks, those commonly 

referred to as over 3⁄4 ton capacity, are 

usually employed commercially; 

typically they are part of a fleet of 

identical (or very similar) vehicles. 

Consequently, EPA employs a slightly 

different method to obtain them. 

Potential owners/lessees can be found 

in registrations lists; engine 

manufacturers will also supply 

identities of their customers. In 

addition, EPA has a network of entities 

who have shown a willingness to 

participate over the years. Once a 

potential source is identified, EPA will 

make a brief telephone call to the fleet 

manager to ascertain if they wish to 

participate. If the response is positive, 

EPA’s contractors will frequently visit 

the fleet to install the testing 

instruments at the company’s service 

facility or government garage. 

Otherwise, the lessee will be within 

driving distance of the testing grounds 

and the devices will be installed there. 

The procedure for nonroad vehicles and 

engines (e.g., farm tractors, compressors) 

is similar; in some cases the vehicle or 

engine may be rented for the day. 

Therefore, EPA makes far fewer inquires 

than with individual owners of light 

vehicles in the process of procuring an 

estimated 126 vehicles and engines a 

year for this program. As with the lightduty component, all participation is 

strictly voluntary. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 0.15 hours per 

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 Supporting Statement 

provides a detailed explanation of the 

Agency’s estimate, which is only briefly 

summarized here: 

Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: Approximately 4,411 

owners/lessees receive EPA’s 

solicitations to participate and 

approximately 336 do participate. 

Frequency of response: On Occasion. 

Estimated total average number of 

responses for each respondent: One. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

658. 

Estimated total annual costs: $49,320. 

This includes an estimated burden cost 

of $49,320 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 an increase of 58 hours in the 

total estimated respondent burden 

compared with that identified in the ICR 

currently approved by OMB. This 

increase reflects EPA’s updating of 

burden estimates based upon historical 

information on the scope of EPA’s inuse testing programs and the number of 

vehicles and engines tested. Note: This 

ICR was previously titled, ‘‘Investigation 

into Possible Noncompliance of Motor 

Vehicles’’. 

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. 

Dated: April 16, 2007. 

Margo Tsirigotis Oge, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality. 

[FR Doc. E7–7542 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER-FRL–6686–2] 

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 

202–564–7167. 

An explanation of the ratings assigned 

to draft environmental impact 

statements (EISs) was published in the 

Federal Register dated April 6, 2007 (72 

FR 17156). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20060469, ERP No. D–FHW–

D40338–00, U.S. 301 Project 

Development, Transportation 

Improvements from MD State Line to 

DE–1, South of the Chesapeake and 

Delaware Canal, New Castle County, 

DE. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about wetland 

impacts and requested additional 

wetlands mitigation. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20070014, ERP No. D–FHW–

F40439–WI, WI–15 Expansion, from 

New London to Greenville, Funding, 

U.S. Army COE 404 Permit, 

Outagamie County, WI. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about wetland 

and water quality impacts, air toxics, 

and noise exposure. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20070030, ERP No. D–IBR–

J28022–00, Red River Valley Water 

Supply Project, Development and 

Delivery of a Bulk Water Supply to 

meet Long-Term Water Needs of the 

Red River Valley, Implementation, ND 

and MN. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about potential 

impacts of Missouri River Basin 

depletion and ecological impacts from 

potential introduction of invasive 

species. EPA provided 

recommendations for biota transfer 

water treatment, adaptive management, 

and drought contingency measures. 

Rating EC1. 

EIS No. 20070050, ERP No. D–FRC–

G02015–00, East Texas to Mississippi 

Expansion Project, Construction and 

Operation of 243.3 miles Natural Gas 

Pipeline to Transport Natural Gas 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
19928 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Notices 

from Production Fields in eastern 

Texas to Markets in the Gulf Coast, 

Midwestern, Northeastern and 

Southeastern United States. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed action, but suggests updating 

the air quality impact analysis. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20070052, ERP No. D–NPS–

D61059–PA, Valley Forge National 

Historical Park, General Management 

Plan, Implementation, King of 

Prussia, PA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about potential 

adverse impacts of the proposed actions 

to water quality and wetlands. The Final 

EIS should detail how the two proposed 

bridges, removal of dams, potential for 

mobilization of contaminants in 

sediments behind the dam, increased 

stormwater flow and changing forested 

habitat to meadow will impact already 

impaired waters and wildlife habitat. 

Rating EC2. 

EIS No. 20070056, ERP No. D–FHW–

G40193–LA, I–49 South Project, from 

Raceland to the Westbank Expressway 

Route U.S. 90, Funding, Coast Guard 

Bridge Permit, U.S. Army COE 

Section 10 and 404 Permits, Jefferson, 

Lafourche, and St. Charles Parishes, 

LA. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed action, but requests 

clarification on some air quality issues. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20070070, ERP No. DA–AFS–

K65283–CA, Empire Vegetation 

Management Project, Supplemental 

Information to Clarify Cumulative 

Effects Analysis, Mount Hough 

Ranger District, Plumas National 

Forest, Plumas County, CA. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed action, but requests 

clarification of monitoring and adaptive 

management issues. 

Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20060236, ERP No. DS–AFS–

L65383–ID, Hidden Cedar Project, 

Updated Information, Manage 

Vegetation Conditions and the 

Transportation System, Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests, St. Joe 

Ranger District, Benewah, Latah and 

Shoshone Counties, ID. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about the 

potential adverse of water quality 

impacts due to the proposed increase in 

road miles which would occur in 

watersheds that are already impaired 

from existing high road densities, as 

well as past mining and grazing 

activities. 

Rating EC2. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20070024, ERP No. F–AFS–

D65033–PA, West Branch of Tionesta 

Project, Multiple Resource 

Management, Implementation 

Bradford Ranger District, Allegheny 

National Forest, Warren County, PA. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed project. 

EIS No. 20070074, ERP No. F–SFW–

K65493–CA, East Contra Costa County 

Habitat Conservation Plan and 

Natural Community Conservation 

Plan, Implementation, Incidental Take 

Permit, Cities of Brentwood, Clayton, 

Oakley and Pittsburg, Contra Costa 

County, CA. 

Summary: EPA’s previous concerns 

have been addressed; therefore, EPA 

does not object to the proposed action. 

EIS No. 20070076, ERP No. F–AFS–

F65064–WI, Boulder Project, Timber 

Harvesting, Vegetation and Road 

Management, U.S. Army COE Section 

404 Permit, Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest, Lakewood-Laona 

Ranger District, Oconto and Langlade 

Counties, WI. 

Summary: While the final EIS 

addressed EPA’s request for additional 

analysis of cumulative impacts, EPA 

continues to have environmental 

concerns about the lack of specific 

habitat information. 

EIS No. 20070081, ERP No. F–JUS–

G81013–TX, Laredo Detention 

Facility, Proposed Contractor-Owned/ 

Contractor-Operated Detention 

Facility, Implementation, Webb 

County, TX. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

EIS No. 20070082, ERP No. F–GSA–

D81037–VA, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) Central Records 

Complex, Alternative 4—Sempeles 

Site, Winchester, Frederick County, 

VA. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed action. 

EIS No. 20070090, ERP No. F–AFS–

J65462–00, Dakota Prairie Grasslands 

Noxious Weed Management Project, 

Implementation, Billings, Slope, 

Golden Valley, Sioux, Grant, 

McHenry, Ransom and Richland 

Counties, ND and Corson, Perkins, 

and Ziebach Counties, SD. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Robert W. Hargrove, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E7–7547 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–6686–1] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7167 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements filed 04/09/2007 through 

04/13/2007 pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.9. 

EIS No. 20070144, Final EIS, AFS, CA, 

Brown Project, Proposal to Improve 

Forest Health by Reducing 

Overcrowded Forest Stand 

Conditions, Trinity River 

Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest, Weaverville Ranger 

District, Trinity County, CA, Wait 

Period Ends: 05/21/2007, Contact: 

Joyce Andersen 530–623–2121. 

EIS No. 20070145, Draft Supplement, 

AFS, UT, Ogden Ranger District 

Travel Plan Revision, To Present 

Additional Analysis for Six 

Alternatives, Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Ogden Ranger District, Box 

Elder, Cache, Morgan, Weber and 

Rich Counties, UT, Comment Period 

Ends: 06/04/2007, Contact: Rick 

Vallejos 801–625–5112. 

EIS No. 20070146, Final EIS, COE, CA, 

ADOPTION—Folsom Dam Safety and 

Flood Damage Reduction Project, 

Addressing Hydrologic, Seismic, 

Static, and Flood Management Issues, 

Sacramento, El Dorado and Placer 

Counties, CA, Wait Period Ends: 05/ 

21/2007, Contact: Jane Rinck 916–

557–6715. 

EIS No. 20070147, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, 

Trapper Bunk House Land 

Stewardship Project, Reduce Risk 

from Stand-Replacing and 

Uncontrollable Fires, Improve 

Resiliency and Provide Forest 

Products, Fuel Reduction Research 

and Watershed Improvement, 

Bitterroot National Forest, Darby 

Ranger District, Ravalli County, MT, 

Comment Period Ends: 06/04/2007, 

Contact: Chuck Oliver 406–821–3913. 

EIS No. 20070148, Final EIS, FHW, NC, 

US 64 Corridor Project, 

Transportation Improvements in the 

Vicinity of the City of Asheboro and 

Improved Access to the NC Zoological 

Park, Funding and COE Section 404 

Permit, Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP) Project No. R–2536, 

Randolph County, NC, Wait Period 

Ends: 05/21/2007, Contact: John F. 

Sullivan 919–856–4346. 

EIS No. 20070149, Draft EIS, FRC, 00, 

Southeast Expansion Project, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES