724 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2013 / Notices 

proprietary information is not 

inadvertently placed in the public 

docket, submissions containing such 

information should be sent directly to 

the contact person listed above and not 

to the public docket. Information 

covered by a claim of confidentiality 

will be disclosed by EPA only to the 

extent allowed, and according to the 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

If no claim of confidentiality 

accompanies the submission when EPA 

receives it, EPA will make it available 

to the public without further notice to 

the person making comments. 

Dated: December 26, 2012. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31720 Filed 1–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9766–2] 

California State Nonroad Engine 

Pollution Control Standards; OffHighway Recreational Vehicles and 

Engines; Request for Authorization; 

Opportunity for Public Hearing and 

Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it 

has adopted regulations to amend its 

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle and 

Engines (‘‘OHRV’’) Regulations. By 

letter dated March 24, 2010, CARB 

submitted a request that EPA authorize 

these regulations under section 209(e) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 

7543(b). CARB seeks confirmation that 

certain of the amendments are within 

the scope of a prior authorization issued 

by EPA, and that certain of the 

amendments require and merit a new 

authorization. This notice announces 

that EPA has tentatively scheduled a 

public hearing to consider California’s 

request, and that EPA is now accepting 

written comment on the request. 

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a 

public hearing concerning CARB’s 

request on January 30, 2013, at 10:00 

a.m. at EPA’s offices at 1310 L Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20005. EPA will 

hold a hearing only if anyone notifies 

EPA that it will present oral testimony 

at the hearing. Parties wishing to 

present oral testimony at the public 

hearing must provide written notice by 

January 17, 2013 to Suzanne Bessette at 

the email address noted below. If EPA 

does not receive a request for a public 

hearing, it will not hold a hearing and 

instead will consider CARB’s request 

based on written submissions to the 

docket. Any party may submit written 

comments by March 1, 2013. 

By January 25, 2013, any person who 

plans to attend the hearing may check 

the following Web page for an update, 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.htm, or 

may call Suzanne Bessette at (734) 214– 

4703 to learn if a hearing will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0742, by one of the 

following methods: 

• On-Line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the OnLine Instructions for Submitting 

Comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0742, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include a total of two 

copies. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

On-Line Instructions for Submitting 

Comments: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0742. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will automatically be captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

EPA will make available for public 

inspection materials submitted by 

CARB, written comments received from 

any interested parties, and any 

testimony given at the public hearing. 

Materials relevant to this proceeding are 

contained in the Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, 

maintained in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0742. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

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-rDocket@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 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site, 

enter EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0742 in the 

‘‘Enter Keyword or ID’’ fill-in box to 

view documents in the record. 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 Web page 

that contains general information on its 

review of California waiver and 

authorization requests. Included on that 

page are links to several of the prior 

Federal Register notices which are cited 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2013 / Notices 725 

1California State Nonroad Engine and Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Authorization of State 

Standards; Notice of Decision, 61 FR 69093 

(December 31, 1996). 

2California Air Resources Board (‘‘CARB’’), 

Request for Authorization, March 24, 2000, at 2. 3CARB, Initial Statement of Reasons, Public 

Hearing to Consider Amendments to the California 

Regulations for New 1997 and Later Off-Highway 

Recreational Vehicles and Engines, October 23, 

1998, at 6. 4 Id. at 8. 5CARB, Request for Authorization, November 19, 

2004, at 1. 6At the same time, CARB argued that future 

amendments of riding seasons and riding areas 

should not be subject to EPA approval, because they 

should be treated as ‘‘operational controls’’ not 

preempted under section 209(d) of the Clean Air 

Act. Id. at note 1. 7Prior to 2002, there were no federal emissions 

standards for OHRVs. The federal regulations 

promulgated in 2002 were codified at 40 CFR part 

1051, see 67 FR 68242 (November 8, 2002), and 

later amended in 2008, see 73 FR 59034 (October 

8, 2008). 

throughout today’s notice; the page can 

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

cafr.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne Bessette, Attorney-Advisor, 

Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Compliance Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105. Telephone: (734) 214–4703. Fax: 

(734) 214–4053. Email address: 

Bessette.Suzanne@epa.gov. 

mailto:Dickinson.David@EPA.GOV. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. CARB’s Prior OHRV Authorization, 

Within-the-Scope Requests, and New 

Requests 

In 1995, the California Air Resources 

Board (‘‘CARB’’) requested that EPA 

authorize California’s exhaust emission 

standards and test procedures for 

nonroad recreational vehicles and 

engines (‘‘OHRVs’’). EPA authorized 

these regulations in 1996.1 CARB’s 

March 24, 2010, letter to the 

Administrator notified EPA that CARB 

has adopted a number of amendments to 

its 1995 OHRV regulations. CARB 

adopted the first amendments in 1999, 

a second set of amendments in 2003, 

and the latest amendments in 2006. 

CARB requested that EPA authorize 

each of these three amendment packages 

in letters dated March 24, 2000, 

November 19, 2004, and March 24, 

2010, respectively. The March 24, 2010 

request explicitly incorporates the 

previous two requests, and EPA intends 

to consider all three requests 

concurrently. 

The 1999 OHRV amendments did not 

change the numerical exhaust emission 

standards, but added a new compliance 

category so that vehicles not meeting the 

OHRV emissions standards could be 

certified subject to use restrictions (i.e., 

use in specified areas during specified 

times of the year). Non-emissionscompliant OHRVs would be identified 

with a red sticker or ‘‘tag,’’ and 

emissions-compliant OHRVs would be 

identified with a green sticker. The 

amendments also added ATVs over 600 

lbs to the existing definition of ATV and 

removed the competition vehicle 

exclusion provision. CARB requested a 

within-the-scope determination for the 

red-tag program and for the removal of 

the competition exclusion, and a new 

authorization for the addition of ATVs 

over 600 lbs. 

According to CARB, the goal of the 

1999 amendments was to provide 

economic relief to vehicle dealers in 

California who were contractually 

bound to sell products that did not met 

the emission standards established in 

1994.2 Prior to the amendments, twostroke off-highway motorcycles could 

only be sold as ‘‘competition’’ models, 

and their use was limited to closedcourse competitions. Following the 

amendments, such vehicles would be 

‘‘red-tagged’’ and allowed to operate 

during certain times in certain areas. 

The amendments provided for 

noncompliant, i.e., red-tagged, vehicles 

to be certified and sold in California and 

to be operated in two situations. First, 

in ‘‘unlimited use areas,’’ which are 

located in regions classified as in 

attainment for the State’s one-hour 

ozone air quality standard, nonemission-compliant OHRVs could be 

used year-round. Second, in ‘‘limited 

use areas,’’ which are located in regions 

classified as nonattainment for the onehour ozone air quality standard, nonemission-compliant OHRVs could be 

used only during ‘‘riding seasons’’ 

specified for each area. The riding 

seasons in limited use areas were 

intended to restrict non-emissioncompliant vehicles from operating 

during peak ozone periods. Out of more 

than 100 designated riding areas, 

approximately one-third were unlimited 

use areas.3 The vast majority of the 

riding areas are on public lands 

managed by the California Department 

of Parks and Recreation, the United 

States Forest Service, and the United 

States Bureau of Land Management. 

CARB predicted that the red tag 

program would cause higher emissions 

and a ‘‘possible minor impact on PM or 

toxics’’ in unlimited use areas, limited 

use areas during non-peak seasons, and 

on a state-wide average; and predicted 

lower emissions in limited use areas 

during peak seasons.4

The 2003 amendment modified the 

OHRV regulations to indicate that riding 

season use restrictions would begin 

with the 2003 model year. The request 

letter regarding this amendment stated 

that the amendment was needed to 

correct the ‘‘practical delay’’ in 

enforcement of the 1999 red-tag 

amendment.5 CARB sought a withinthe-scope finding for this amendment.6

CARB also reaffirmed its approval of its 

1999 amendments, analyzing them in 

comparison to the later federal OHRV 

regulations promulgated in 2002.7

The 2006 amendments made three 

further changes to California’s OHRV 

regulations. First, they added 

evaporative emissions standards for 

OHRVs aligned with federal standards 

for 2008 and later model year vehicles. 

Second, the amendments reclassified 

sand cars, off-road utility vehicles and 

off-road sport vehicles as OHRVs, which 

is aligned with the federal classification 

of these vehicles. Each of these vehicles 

had previously been regulated under 

other federally-approved California 

regulations as small off-road or large offroad spark-ignition engines. The 

amendment set emissions standards for 

these three additional classes of 

vehicles. Third, the list of riding areas 

and riding seasons was amended. 

CARB’s 2010 request regarding the 

2006 amendments sought (1) A new 

authorization for the evaporative 

emissions standard, (2) a within-thescope determination for the 

reclassification of sand cars, off-road 

sport vehicles and off-road utility 

vehicles and (3) a declaration that the 

riding areas and riding seasons 

amendment does not require EPA 

authorization because the list is an 

‘‘operational control’’ that cannot be 

federally preempted, pursuant to Clean 

Air Act section 209(d). California also 

requested that in the alternative, the 

riding season amendments be 

considered within the scope of the 1996 

authorization. Finally, the 2010 letter 

requested that EPA concurrently 

consider and render a decision on the 

pending 1999 and 2003 amendments 

authorization requests. 

II. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and 

Vehicle Authorizations 

Section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

prohibits States and local governments 

from adopting or attempting to enforce 

any standard or requirement relating to 

the control of emissions from new 

nonroad vehicles or engines. The 

Administrator must authorize California 

to enforce its own standards upon 

making specific findings, detailed 

below. Section 209(d) precludes federal 

preemption of state standards that 

‘‘control, regulate, or restrict the use, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

726 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2013 / Notices 

8 40 CFR 1074.105. 

9 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994). 

10To be consistent, the California certification 

procedures need not be identical to the Federal 

certification procedures. California procedures 

would be inconsistent, however, if manufacturers 

would be unable to meet the state and the Federal 

requirements with the same test vehicle in the 

course of the same test. 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978). 

operation, or movement of registered or 

licensed motor vehicles.’’ State laws 

governing use, operation, or movement 

of motor vehicles do not, therefore, 

require federal authorization. 

A. Criteria for New Authorization 

Determinations 

Section 209(e)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

preempts states from regulating 

(subparagraph A) new engines smaller 

than 175 horsepower that are used in 

construction equipment or vehicles or 

farm equipment or vehicles and 

(subparagraph B) new locomotives or 

engines used in locomotives. Section 

209(e)(2)(A) requires the Administrator 

to grant California authorization to 

adopt and enforce its own standards for 

new nonroad engines not included in 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 

(1), under certain circumstances: 

[* * *] the Administrator shall, after 

notice and opportunity for public hearing, 

authorize California to adopt and enforce 

standards and other requirements relating to 

the control of emissions from such vehicles 

or engines if California determines that 

California standards will be, in the aggregate, 

at least as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable Federal standards. 

Authorization shall not be granted, 

however, if the Administrator finds that 

(i) The determination of the state is 

arbitrary and capricious, (ii) the state 

does not need the state standards to 

meet compelling and extraordinary 

conditions, or (iii) the state standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures are not consistent with this 

section.8

EPA has historically interpreted the 

section 209(e)(2)(iii) ‘‘consistency’’ 

inquiry to require, at minimum, that 

California standards and enforcement 

procedures be consistent with section 

209(a), section 209(e)(1), and section 

209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that 

subsection in the context of section 

209(b) motor vehicle waivers).9 In order 

to be consistent with section 209(a), 

California’s nonroad standards and 

enforcement procedures must not apply 

to new motor vehicles or new motor 

vehicle engines. To be consistent with 

section 209(e)(1), California’s nonroad 

standards and enforcement procedures 

must not attempt to regulate engine 

categories that are permanently 

preempted from state regulation. To 

determine consistency with section 

209(b)(1)(C), EPA typically reviews 

nonroad authorization requests under 

the same ‘‘consistency’’ criteria that are 

applied to motor vehicle waiver 

requests. Pursuant to section 

209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not 

grant California a motor vehicle waiver 

if she finds that California ‘‘standards 

and accompanying enforcement 

procedures are not consistent with 

section 202(a)’’ of the Act. Previous 

decisions granting waivers and 

authorizations have noted that state 

standards and enforcement procedures 

are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: 

(1) there is inadequate lead time to 

permit the development of the necessary 

technology giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance 

within that time, or (2) the federal and 

state testing procedures impose 

inconsistent certification 

requirements.10

B. Criteria for Within-the-Scope 

Determinations 

When California makes a minor 

amendment to regulations that EPA has 

previously authorized, EPA can confirm 

that the amendment is within the scope 

of the previously granted authorization. 

In this situation, EPA does not typically 

go through the full analysis for a new 

request, but instead grants authorization 

by reference to the analysis and 

approval of the original authorization. A 

within-the-scope amendment is 

permissible 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 

authorizations. 

III. Request for Comment 

EPA invites public comment on 

CARB’s entire request, including but not 

limited to the following issues. 

A. 1999 Amendments 

First, should California’s 1999 OHRV 

amendments, specifically the provision 

for certification of OHRVs that do not 

meet the emissions criteria (the ‘‘red 

tag’’ amendment) and the removal of the 

competition exemption, be considered 

under the within-the-scope analysis or 

should they be considered under the 

‘‘new’’ authorization criteria? If those 

amendments should be considered as a 

within-the-scope request, do they meet 

the criteria for EPA to grant a withinthe-scope confirmation? Alternatively, if 

the ‘‘red tag’’ amendment and removal 

of the competition exemption should 

not be considered under the within-thescope analysis, or in the event that EPA 

does not determine they are within-thescope of the previous authorization, do 

they meet the criteria for making a new 

authorization determination? 

Second, does the removal of the 600 

lb weight limitation in the definition of 

‘‘ATV’’ meet the criteria for making a 

new authorization determination? 

B. 2003 Amendment 

Should the amendment limiting the 

red tag program to model years 2003 

and later be under the within-the-scope 

criteria, and if so, does it meet the 

within-the-scope criteria for 

authorization? To the extent that the 

2003 amendment should be treated as a 

new authorization request, does it meet 

the criteria for a new authorization? 

C. 2006 Amendments 

First, does the amendment setting 

evaporative emissions standards for 

OHRVs meet the criteria for new 

authorizations? Second, does the 

amendment reclassifying sand cars, offroad sport vehicles and off-road utility 

vehicles as OHRVs fall within-the-scope 

of the original (1996) authorization? 

Third, does the amendment altering the 

list of riding areas and riding seasons 

require federal authorization review, or 

is it not federally preempted, pursuant 

to CAA § 209(d)? If it is preempted and 

therefore requires federal approval, does 

the amended list of riding areas and 

seasons fall within-the-scope of the 

original (1996) authorization? 

IV. Procedures for Public Participation 

If a hearing is held, the Agency will 

make a verbatim record of the 

proceedings. Interested parties may 

arrange with the reporter at the hearing 

to obtain a copy of the transcript at their 

own expense. Regardless of whether a 

public hearing is held, EPA will keep 

the record open until March 1, 2013. 

Upon expiration of the comment period, 

the Administrator will render a decision 

on CARB’s request based on the record 

from the public hearing, if any, all 

relevant written submissions, and other 

information that she deems pertinent. 

All information will be available for 

inspection at the EPA Air Docket No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0742. 

Persons with comments containing 

proprietary information must 

distinguish such information from other 

comments to the greatest extent possible 

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business 

Information’’ (‘‘CBI’’). If a person 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2013 / Notices 727 

making comments wants EPA to base its 

decision on a submission labeled as CBI, 

then a non-confidential version of the 

document that summarizes the key data 

or information should be submitted to 

the public docket. To ensure that 

proprietary information is not 

inadvertently placed in the public 

docket, submissions containing such 

information should be sent directly to 

the contact person listed above and not 

to the public docket. Information 

covered by a claim of confidentiality 

will be disclosed by EPA only to the 

extent allowed, and according to the 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

If no claim of confidentiality 

accompanies the submission when EPA 

receives it, EPA will make it available 

to the public without further notice to 

the person making comments. 

Dated: December 26, 2012. 

Christopher Grundler, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31719 Filed 1–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9006–9] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/ 

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements. 

Filed 12/24/2012 through 12/28/2012. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As of 

October 1, 2012, EPA will not accept 

paper copies or CDs of EISs for filing 

purposes; all submissions on or after 

October 1, 2012 must be made through 

e-NEPA. 

While this system eliminates the need 

to submit paper or CD copies to EPA to 

meet filing requirements, electronic 

submission does not change 

requirements for distribution of EISs for 

public review and comment. To begin 

using e-NEPA, you must first register 

with EPA’s electronic reporting site— 

https://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp 

EIS No. 20120402, Draft EIS, FHWA, 

CA, State Route 58 (SR–58) Hinkley 

Expressway Project, Grade Separate, 

Widen, and Realign, San Bernardino 

County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 

02/19/2013, Contact: James Shankel 

909–383–6379. 

EIS No. 20120403, Draft EIS, FHWA, ID, 

US–95 Thorncreek Road to Moscow, 

from Milepost 337.67 to Milepost 

344.00, Latah County, ID, Comment 

Period Ends: 02/22/2013, Contact: 

John A. Perry 208–334–9180 

extension 116. 

EIS No. 20120404, Draft EIS, BLM, WA, 

Vantage to Pomona Heights 230 kV 

Transmission Line Project, Grant, 

Brenton, Kittitas, and Yakima 

Counties, WA, Comment Period Ends: 

02/19/2013, Contact: William 

Schurger 509–665–2100. 

EIS No. 20120405, Revised Draft EIS, 

USACE, LA, Morganza to the Gulf of 

Mexico, Hurricane and Storm Damage 

Risk Reduction System Project, 

Improvements and Changes, 

Terrebonne Parish and Lafourche 

Parish, LA, Comment Period Ends: 

02/19/2013, Contact: Nathan Dayan 

504–862–2530. 

EIS No. 20120406, Final EIS, USFWS, 

DE, Prime Hook National Wildlife 

Refuge, Development of a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 

Milton, DE, Review Period Ends: 02/ 

04/2013, Contact: Thomas Bonetti 

413–253–8307. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20120395, Draft EIS, USFS, SC, 

AP Loblolly Pine Removal and 

Restoration Project, Andrew Pickens 

Ranger District, Sumter National 

Forest, Oconee County, SC, Comment 

Period Ends: 02/13/2013, Contact: 

Victor Wyant 864–638–9568 Revision 

to FR Notice Published 12/31/2012; 

Correcting Project State Location from 

CA to SC. 

Dated: December 31, 2012. 

Dawn Roberts, 

Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance 

Division, Office of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31744 Filed 1–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9765–7] 

Public Notice of Proposed Reissuance 

of the NPDES General Permits for 

Facilities/Operations That Generate, 

Treat, and/or Use/Dispose of Sewage 

Sludge by Means of Land Application, 

Landfill, and Surface Disposal in the 

EPA Region 8 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to reissue 

NPDES general permits and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Region 8 of the EPA is hereby 

giving notice of its tentative 

determination to reissue National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) general permits for facilities or 

operations that generate, treat, and/or 

use/dispose of sewage sludge by means 

of land application, landfill, and surface 

disposal in the States of CO, MT, ND, 

and WY and in Indian country in the 

States of CO, MT, ND, SD, WY and UT 

(except for the Goshute Indian 

Reservation and the Navajo Indian 

Reservation). 

DATES: Public comments on this 

proposal must be received, in writing, 

on or before February 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Public comments should be 

sent to: WASTEWATER UNIT (8P–W– 

WW); ATTENTION: BIOSOLIDS 

PROGRAM; U.S. EPA, REGION 8; 1595 

WYNKOOP STREET; DENVER, CO 

80202–1129. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the draft permit and Fact 

Sheet may be downloaded from the EPA 

Region 8 web page at http:// 

www.epa.gov/region8/water/biosolids/ 

documents.html. For a printed copy of 

the draft permit and Fact Sheet, please 

write Bob Brobst at the above address or 

telephone (303) 312–6129. Questions 

regarding the specific permit 

requirements may be directed to Bob 

Brobst, telephone (303) 312–6129. 

Public Comment Period: Public 

comments are invited. Comments must 

be written and must be received by no 

later than February 19, 2013. Comments 

should be sent to: WASTEWATER UNIT 

(8P–W–WW); ATTENTION: BIOSOLIDS 

PROGRAM; U.S. EPA, REGION 8; 1595 

WYNKOOP STREET; DENVER, CO 

80202–1129. Each comment should cite 

the page number and, where possible, 

the section(s) and/or paragraph(s) in the 

draft permit or Fact Sheet to which each 

comment refers. Commenters should 

use a separate paragraph for each issue 

discussed. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with