3030 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Notices 

1Firm peaking energy is normally returned. This 

rate will be assessed in the event firm peaking 

energy is not returned. 

component will be documented in a 

revision to this rate schedule. 

For Character and Conditions of 

Service: Customers who receive 

deliveries at transmission voltage may 

in some instances be eligible to receive 

a 5-percent discount on demand and 

energy charges when facilities are 

provided by the customer that results in 

a sufficient savings to Western to justify 

the discount. The determination of 

eligibility for receipt of the voltage 

discount shall be exclusively vested in 

Western. 

For Billing of Unauthorized Overruns: 

For each billing period in which there 

is a contract violation involving an 

unauthorized overrun of the contractual 

firm power and/or energy obligations, 

such overrun shall be billed at 10 times 

the above rate. 

For Power Factor: None. The customer 

will be required to maintain a power 

factor at the point of delivery between 

95 percent lagging and 95 percent 

leading. 

Rate Schedule P–SED–FP10 

(Supersedes Schedule P–SED–FP9) 

Effective February 1, 2009 

United States Department of Energy, 

Western Area Power Administration 

Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program— 

Eastern Division Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, 

Iowa, Nebraska; 

Schedule of Rates for Firm Peaking 

Power Service 

(Approved Under Rate Order No. 

WAPA–140) 

Effective: The first day of the first full 

billing period beginning on or after 

February 1, 2009, through December 31, 

2013. 

Available: Within the marketing area 

served by the Eastern Division of the 

Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, to 

customers with generating resources 

enabling them to use firm peaking 

power service. 

Applicable: To the power sold to 

customers as firm peaking power 

service. 

Character: Alternating current, 60 

hertz, three phase, delivered and 

metered at the voltages and points 

established by contract. 

Monthly Rates 

Demand Charge: $6.20 for each 

kilowatt per month (kWmonth) of the 

effective contract rate of delivery for 

peaking power or the maximum amount 

scheduled, whichever is greater. 

Energy Charge: 16.71 mills for each 

kilowatthour (kWh) for all energy 

scheduled for delivery without return. 

Charge Components 

Base: A fixed revenue requirement 

that includes operation and 

maintenance expense, investment and 

replacements, normal timing purchase 

power costs (purchases due to 

operational constraints, not associated 

with drought), and transmission costs. 

The Base peaking revenue requirement 

is $14.5 million. 

Base Demand Base Peaking Demand Revenue Requirement

Peaking = CROD Billing Units = $. / 3 40 kW month

Energy 1 = 9.27 mills/kWh 

Drought Adder: A formula-based 

revenue requirement that includes 

future purchase power above timing 

purchases, previous purchase power 

drought deficits, and interest on the 

purchase power drought deficits. For 

the period beginning February 1, 2009, 

the Drought Adder peaking revenue 

requirement is $12.0 million. 

Drought Adder Demand Drought Adder Peaking Demand Revenue = Requirement

Peaking CROD Billing Units = $. / 2 80 kW month

Energy 1 = 7.44 mills/kWh 

Process: 

Any proposed change to the Base 

component will require a public 

process. The Drought Adder component 

may be adjusted annually using the 

above formula for any costs attributed to 

drought of less than or equal to the 

equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to the Power 

Repayment Study (PRS) composite rate. 

Any planned incremental adjustment to 

the Drought Adder component greater 

than the equivalent of 2 mills/kWh to 

the PRS composite rate will require a 

public process. 

Billing Demand: The billing demand 

will be the greater of: (1) The highest 30- 

minute integrated demand measured 

during the month up to, but not in 

excess of, the delivery obligation under 

the power sales contract, or (2) the 

contract rate of delivery. 

Adjustments 

For Drought Adder: Adjustments 

pursuant to the Drought Adder 

component will be documented in a 

revision to this rate schedule. 

Billing for Unauthorized Overruns: 

For each billing period in which there 

is a contract violation involving an 

unauthorized overrun of the contractual 

obligation for peaking demand and/or 

energy, such overrun shall be billed at 

10 times the above rate. 

[FR Doc. E9–892 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[AMS–FRL–8762–9] 

California State Nonroad Engine and 

Vehicle Pollution Control Standards; 

Authorization of Transport 

Refrigeration Unit Engine Standards, 

Notice of Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Decision for 

Authorization of California Transport 

Refrigeration Unit In-use Engine 

Emission Standards. 

SUMMARY: EPA today, pursuant to 

section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 

42 U.S.C. 7543(e), is granting California 

its request for authorization to enforce 

its Airborne Toxic Control measure 

(ATCM) establishing in-use emission 

performance standards for engines in 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICESEN16JA09.010</GPH> EN16JA09.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Notices 3031 

1Section 209(e)(1) of the Act provides: 

No State or any political subdivision thereof shall 

adopt or attempt to enforce any standard or other 

requirement relating to the control of emissions 

from either of the following new nonroad engines 

or nonroad vehicles subject to regulation under this 

Act— 

(A) New engines which are used in construction 

equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment 

or vehicles and which are smaller than 175 

horsepower. 

(B) New locomotives or new engines used in 

locomotives. Subsection (b) shall not apply for 

purposes of this paragraph. 

2See 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994), and regulations 

set forth therein, 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart Q, 

§§ 85.1601–85.1606. EPA recently moved these 

regulations, without changing their substance to 40 

CFR Part 1074. See 73 FR 59033, 59279 (October 

8, 2008). 

3See 59 FR 36969, 36983 (July 20, 1994). 

4Section 209(e)(1) of the Act has been 

implemented See 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart Q, 

§§ 85.1602, 85.1603 and, effective December 8, 

2008, 40 CFR Part 1074, §§ 1074.10, 1074.12. 

§ 1074.10 provides in applicable part: 

(a) States are preempted from adopting or 

enforcing standards or other requirements relating 

to the control of emissions from new engines 

smaller than 175 horsepower that are primarily 

used in farm or construction equipment or vehicles, 

as defined in this part. For equipment that is used 

in applications in addition to farming or 

construction activities, if the equipment is 

primarily used as farm and/or construction 

equipment or vehicles (as defined in this part), it 

is considered farm or construction equipment or 

vehicles. 

§ 1074.5 provides definitions of terms used in 

§ 1074.10 and states in applicable part: 

Construction equipment or vehicle means any 

internal combustion engine-powered machine 

primarily used in construction and located on 

commercial construction sites. 

Farm Equipment or Vehicle means any internal 

combustion engine-powered machine primarily 

used in the commercial production and/or 

commercial harvesting of food, fiber, wood, or 

commercial organic products or for the processing 

of such products for further use on the farm. 

Primarily used means used 51 percent or more. 

transport refrigeration units (TRUs) and 

TRU generator sets that will be phasedin commencing in December 31, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: The Agency’s Decision 

Document, containing an explanation of 

the Assistant Administrator’s decision, 

as well as all documents relied upon in 

making that decision, including those 

submitted to EPA by California, are 

available for public inspection in EPA 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (Air Docket). 

Materials relevant to this decision are 

contained in Docket OAR–2005–0123 at 

the following location: EPA Air Docket, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC, 20460. The EPA 

Docket Center Public Reading Room is 

open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday 

through Friday, except on government 

holidays. The Air Docket telephone 

number is (202) 566–1742, and the 

facsimile number is (202) 566–1741. 

You may be charged a reasonable fee for 

photocopying docket materials, as 

provided in 40 CFR part 2. 

Additionally, 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, 

select ‘‘Environmental Protection 

Agency’’ from the pull-down Agency 

list, then scroll to ‘‘Keyword or ID’’ and 

enter EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0123 to 

view documents in the record of this 

TRU Authorization Request docket. 

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 makes available an electronic 

copy of this Notice via the Internet on 

the Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality (OTAQ) homepage (http:// 

www.epa.gov/OTAQ). Users can find 

this document by accessing the OTAQ 

homepage and looking at the path 

entitled ‘‘Federal Register Notices.’’ 

This service is free of charge, except any 

cost you already incur for Internet 

connectivity. Users can also get the 

official Federal Register version of the 

Notice on the day of publication on the 

primary Web site: (http://www.epa.gov/ 

docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR) Please note that 

due to differences between the software 

used to develop the documents and the 

software into which the documents may 

be downloaded, changes in format, page 

length, etc., may occur. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert M. Doyle, Attorney-Advisor, 

Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, (6403J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 

(U.S. mail), 1310 L Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005 (courier mail). 

Telephone: (202) 343–9258, Fax: (202) 

343–2804, E-Mail: doyle.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Nonroad Authorizations 

Section 209(e)(1) of the Act addresses 

the permanent preemption of any State, 

or political subdivision thereof, from 

adopting or attempting to enforce any 

standard or other requirement relating 

to the control of emissions for certain 

new nonroad engines or vehicles.1

Section 209(e)(2) of the Act requires the 

Administrator, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, to grant 

California authorization to enforce state 

standards for new nonroad engines or 

vehicles which are not listed under 

section 209(e)(1), subject to certain 

restrictions. On July 20, 1994, EPA 

promulgated a regulation that sets forth, 

among other things, the criteria, as 

found in section 209(e)(2), by which 

EPA must consider any California 

authorization requests for new nonroad 

engines or vehicle emission standards 

(section 209(e) rules).2 This regulation, 

previously codified at 40 CFR Part 85, 

Subpart Q, and, effective December 8, 

2008, codified at 40 CFR Part 1074, 

provides: 

(a) The Administrator shall grant the 

authorization if California determines that its 

standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as 

protective of public health and welfare as 

applicable Federal standards. 

(b) The authorization shall not be granted 

if the Administrator finds that: 

(1) The determination of California is 

arbitrary and capricious; 

(2) California does not need such California 

standards to meet compelling and 

extraordinary conditions; or 

(3) California standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not consistent 

with section 209. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

section 209(e) rule, EPA has interpreted 

the requirement regarding whether 

‘‘California standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

are not consistent with section 209’’ to 

mean that California standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

must 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 motor 

vehicle waivers.3 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. Secondly, California’s 

nonroad standards and enforcement 

procedures must be consistent with 

section 209(e)(1), which identifies the 

categories permanently preempted from 

state regulation.4 California’s nonroad 

standards and enforcement procedures 

would be considered inconsistent with 

section 209 if they applied to the 

categories of engines or vehicles 

identified and preempted from State 

regulation in section 209(e)(1). 

Finally, because California’s nonroad 

standards and enforcement procedures 

must be consistent with section 

209(b)(1)(C), EPA will review nonroad 

authorization requests under the same 

‘‘consistency’’ criteria that are applied 

to motor vehicle waiver requests. Under 

section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator 

shall not grant California a motor 

vehicle waiver if he finds that California 

‘‘standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not 

consistent with section 202(a)’’ of the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

3032 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Notices 

5To 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 both the state and the 

Federal requirement with the same test vehicle in 

the course of the same test. See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 

(July 25, 1978). 

6See, e.g., Motor and Equipment Manufacturers 

Association, Inc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111–14 

(D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 (1980) 

(MEMA I); 43 FR 25729 (June 14, 1978). While 

inconsistency with section 202(a) includes 

technological feasibility, lead time, and cost, these 

aspects are typically relevant only with regard to 

standards. The aspect of consistency with 202(a) 

which is of primary applicability to enforcement 

procedures (especially test procedures) is test 

procedure consistency. 

7See 43 FR 36679, 36680 (August 18, 1978). 

8 Decision Document, Dockets A–2000–05 to 08, 

entry V–B–1, p. 10. 

9CARB TRU Authorization Request, Initial 

Statement of Reasons, Docket Entry OAR–2005– 

0123–0005, p. E–2. 

10CARB identifies these ‘‘Alternative 

technologies’’ as including but not limited to the 

use of electric standby, cryogenic temperature 

control systems, alternative fuel, alternative diesel 

fuel, fuel cell power, or any other system approved 

by the CARB Executive Officer to not emit diesel 

PM or increase public health risk while at a facility. 

Alternative technologies only qualify toward 

compliance with the ULETRU in-use performance 

standard requirement if they eliminate diesel 

operation at facilities. CARB TRU Authorization 

Request, Initial Statement of Reasons, Docket Entry 

OAR–2005–0123–0005, p. VII–7. 

11CARB Request Letter and Support Document, 

Docket Entry OAR–2005–0123–0002, p. 6. 

12 70 FR 70075 (November 21, 2005), Docket 

Entry OAR–2005–0123–0001. 

Act. Previous decisions granting waivers 

of Federal preemption for motor 

vehicles have stated that State standards 

are inconsistent with section 202(a) if 

there is inadequate lead time to permit 

the development of the necessary 

technology giving appropriate 

consideration to the cost of compliance 

within that time period or if the Federal 

and State test procedures impose 

inconsistent certification requirements.5

With regard to enforcement 

procedures accompanying standards, 

EPA must grant the requested 

authorization unless it finds that these 

procedures may cause the California 

standards, in the aggregate, to be less 

protective of public health and welfare 

than the applicable Federal standards 

promulgated pursuant to section 213(a), 

or unless the Federal and California 

certification test procedures are 

inconsistent.6

Once California has received an 

authorization for its standards and 

enforcement procedures for a certain 

group or class of nonroad equipment 

engines or vehicles, it may adopt other 

conditions precedent to the initial retail 

sale, titling or registration of these 

engines or vehicles without the 

necessity of receiving an additional 

authorization.7

If California acts to amend a 

previously authorized standard or 

accompanying enforcement procedure, 

the amendment may be considered 

within the scope of a previously granted 

authorization provided that it does not 

undermine California’s determination 

that its standards in the aggregate are as 

protective of public health and welfare 

as applicable Federal standards, does 

not affect the consistency with section 

209 of the Act, and raises no new issues 

affecting EPA’s previous authorization 

determination.8

B. CARB’s Authorization Request 

CARB, by letter dated March 28, 2005, 

requested that EPA grant California an 

authorization to adopt and enforce new 

regulations which establish in-use 

performance standards for diesel-fueled 

TRUs and TRU generator sets which 

operate in California, and facilities 

where TRUs operate. The TRU 

regulations are contained in an Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) adopted 

by CARB to reduce the general public’s 

exposure to diesel particulate matter 

(PM), other toxic airborne contaminants 

(TACs) and air pollutants generated by 

TRUs and reduce near source risk at 

facilities where TRUs congregate. TRUs 

are refrigeration systems powered by 

internal combustion engines (almost 

always diesel-powered) which control 

the environment of temperaturesensitive products (perishable food and 

commodities) that are transported in 

semi-trailer vans, truck vans, ‘‘reefer’ 

railcars or shipping containers. The 

engines in TRUs do not propel the 

vehicle, but are used strictly to power 

the refrigeration system. TRU generator 

sets are designed and used to provide 

electric power to electrically driven 

refrigeration units of any kind. These 

TRU engines are nonroad engines; they 

do not propel the vehicle, but are used 

strictly to power the refrigeration 

system. TRU engines vary in 

horsepower generally from 7 hp to 36 

hp, with the most common size being 35 

hp.9

Owners/operators of TRUs that 

operate in California must comply with 

the in-use performance standards; this 

applies to TRUs registered in California 

and outside of California, even if the inCalifornia use is minimal. Most of the 

engines used in TRUs are already 

subject to Federal and California 

emission standards as new engines. 

New TRU engines less than 25 hp 

became subject to CARB standards in 

1995 and EPA standards in 2000, and 

engines equal to or greater than 25 hp 

but less than 50 hp became subject to 

EPA standards in 1999 and to CARB 

standards in 2000. 

These new CARB regulations will 

affect in-use TRU engines by requiring 

the in-use TRU engines to meet specific 

performance standards that vary by HP 

range, and have two levels of stringency 

that are phased in over time—the Low 

Emission TRU (LETRU) Standards, 

beginning in 2008, and the Ultra-Low 

Emission TRU (ULETRU) Performance 

Standard beginning in 2010. The ATCM 

requires owners of TRUs to meet more 

stringent performance standards at 7- 

year intervals until the TRU meets the 

Ultra-Low emission performance 

standards, and the timing depends on 

the original Model Year of the engine. 

The TRU in-use standards correlate to 

the EPA Tier 4 Nonroad CI standards; 

the LETRU standards are the EPA 

Interim standards and the ULETRU 

standards are the EPA long-term 

standards. 

The TRU regulations offer several 

ways that owners/operators can comply. 

The owner/operator may: 

(1) Elect to show that the existing 

TRU is equipped with an engine that 

meets the EPA Tier IV certification 

standard for new non-road engines; 

(2) Repower the TRU system by 

replacing the existing TRU engine with 

an engine that meets the EPA Tier IV 

standard for new engines; 

(3) Replace an existing TRU with a 

newer TRU that is equipped with an 

engine that meets the EPA tier IV 

certificate standard for new engines; 

(4) Retrofit an existing TRU engine 

using a CARB approved verified diesel 

emission control strategy (VDECS); 

(5) Use an Alternative Technology 

approved by CARB.10

Owners/Operators of TRU engines 25 

hp and over can choose any of the 

compliance options listed above. 

Owners/Operators of TRU engines 

under 25 hp will need to choose either 

the retrofit option, or the alternative 

technology option to meet the ULETRU 

requirement. This is because currently 

there is no Tier-4 aligned (i.e. after 

treatment-forcing) EPA standard for 

engines under 25 hp, so there is no Tier4 aligned engine certification 

compliance option available to meet the 

ULETRU in-use standard.11

As required by the Act, EPA offered 

the opportunity for a public hearing and 

requested public comments on these 

new standards by publication of a 

Federal Register notice to such effect on 

November 21, 2005.12 EPA received a 

request for a hearing from the American 

Trucking Association, and from the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Notices 3033 

13Letter from Glenn P. Kedzie, American 

Trucking Association to Robert M. Doyle, USEPA, 

dated January 27, 2005, Docket Entry 2005–0123– 

0014, and letter from Thomas James, Truck Rental 

and Leasing Association to Robert M. Doyle, 

USEPA, dated December 1, 2005, Docket entry 

OAR–2005–0123–0015. 

14EPA received testimony from: Michael Terris, 

Anthony Andreoni and Rod Hill, California Air 

Resources Board; Robert Digges, American Trucking 

Association; Corey England, C.R. England Co.; 

James Lyons, Sierra Research; Thomas James, Truck 

Rental and leasing Association, Andrew Stopka, 

National Lease Company; Thomas Richichi, 

Beveridge & Diamond Law Firm, on behalf of the 

American Trucking Association, and John Kaburick, 

Earl L. Henderson Trucking Company and on behalf 

of the Truckload Carriers Association. Written 

statements presented at this hearing and the hearing 

transcript appear in the Docket as Docket Entries 

OAR–2005–0123–0013 and OAR–2005–0123–0017 

through OAR–2005–0123–0023. 

15These comments can be found in the Docket as 

Docket entries OAR–2005–0123–0024 through 

OAR–2005–0123–0031. 

Truck Rental and Leasing Association,13

and a hearing was held on January 23, 

2006.14 In addition, EPA received 

written comments for the Docket of this 

proceeding from several commenters, 

including additional submissions from 

CARB and some of the parties who 

testified at the public hearing, 

submissions from the Owner-Operators 

Independent Drivers Association, the 

Truckload Carriers Association, the 

California Trucking Association, the 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, 

and the Agricultural and Food 

Transporters Conference of American 

Trucking Associations, and a 

supplemental submission from CARB 

responding to matters raised by some 

industry parties in their written 

comments.15 Accordingly, EPA has 

made this authorization decision based 

on the information submitted by CARB 

in its requests, and the information 

presented to the Agency at the public 

hearing and in the comments received 

after the hearing. 

C. Authorization Decision 

EPA received hearing testimony and 

written comments from industry parties 

who opposed the CARB request for 

authorization request on various 

grounds. After review of the information 

submitted by CARB and other parties to 

the record of this Docket, however, EPA 

finds that those opposing the 

authorization request have not met the 

burden of demonstrating that 

California’s regulations do not satisfy 

the statutory criteria of section 209(e). 

For this reason, EPA is granting 

California authorization to enforce its 

TRU ATCM regulations. A full 

explanation of EPA’s decision, 

including our review of comments 

received, is contained in our Decision 

Document, which may be obtained as 

explained above in the ‘‘Addresses’’ 

section of this Notice. 

My decision will affect not only 

persons in California but also persons 

outside the State who would need to 

comply with California’s TRU ATCM 

regulations to enter California with such 

engines. For this reason, I hereby 

determine and find that this is a final 

action of national applicability. 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 March 17, 2009. Under 

section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial 

review of this final action may not be 

obtained in subsequent enforcement 

proceedings. 

As with past authorization 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. 

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). 

Finally, the Administrator has 

delegated the authority to make 

determinations regarding authorizations 

under section 209(e) of the Act to the 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

Dated: January 9, 2009. 

Robert J. Meyers, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. E9–907 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8589–6] 

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 

202–564–7146. An explanation of the 

ratings assigned to draft environmental 

impact statements (EISs) was published 

in FR dated April 6, 2008 (73 FR 19833). 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20080445, ERP No. D–FTA– 

K59008–CA, Berkeley/Albany Ferry 

Terminal Study, Proposing to 

Implement New Ferry Service 

between Berkeley/Albany and the San 

Francisco Ferry Building, Funding, 

San Francisco Water Transit 

Authority (WETA), Berkeley/Albany, 

CA. 

Summary: EPA expressed 

environmental concerns about 

biological resource and dredging 

impacts. Rating EC2. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20080438, ERP No. F–FHW– 

K50014–CA, Doyle Drive Project, 

South Access to the Golden Gate 

Bridge, Propose to Improve Seismic, 

Structural, and Traffic Safety, Presidio 

of San Francisco, San Francisco 

County Transportation Authority, 

Marin and San Francisco Counties, 

CA. 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns about traffic 

and localized air quality impacts due to 

the scale and duration of construction 

activities. 

EIS No. 20080476, ERP No. F–COE– 

G39047–00, White River Minimum 

Flow Study, To Provide an Improved 

Minimum Flow for the Benefit of the 

Tail Water Fishery, White River Basin 

Lakes: Bull Shoal Lakes on the White 

River; Norfork Lake on the North Fork 

White River, AR. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

EIS No. 20080482, ERP No. F–DOE– 

A09800–00, PROGRAMMATIC— 

Designation of Energy Corridors in 11 

Western States, Preferred Location of 

Future Oil, Gas, and Hydrogen 

Pipelines and Electricity 

Transmission and Distribution 

Facilities on Federal Land, AZ, CA, 

CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, WA, and 

WY. 

Summary: While the final 

Programmatic EIS provided additional 

information on the interagency 

operating procedures (IOPs) and 

impacts to visual resources areas, EPA 

continues to have environmental 

concerns about the potential impacts to 

wetlands in the designated corridors. 

EIS No. 20080483, ERP No. F–FHW– 

D40184–MO, MO–34 Improvement, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES