Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Notices 49789 

meeting agenda, as well as the staff 

analyses pertaining to the meeting will 

be posted on the Department of 

Education’s Web site prior to the 

meeting at http://www2.ed.gov/about/ 

bdscomm/list/ncfmea.html. 

Reasonable Accommodations: The 

meeting site is accessible to individuals 

with disabilities. If you will need an 

auxiliary aid or service to participate in 

the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, 

assistive listening device, or materials in 

an alternate format), notify the contact 

person listed in this notice by 

September 28, 2012, although we will 

attempt to meet a request received after 

that date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Griffiths, Executive Director for 

the NCFMEA, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

8073, Washington, DC 20006–8129, 

telephone: 202 219–7035; fax: 202 502– 

7874, or email: Carol.Griffiths@ed.gov. 

Electronic Access to this Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

David A. Bergeron, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20282 Filed 8–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

[Docket No. PP–334] 

Record of Decision for Issuing a 

Presidential Permit to Energia Sierra 

Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC, for the 

Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. 

Transmission Line Project 

AGENCY: Office of Electricity Delivery 

and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Record of Decision (ROD). 

SUMMARY: DOE announces its decision 

to issue a Presidential permit to Energia 

Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission, LLC 

(ESJ), to construct, operate, maintain, 

and connect a double-circuit, 230,000- 

volt (230-kV) electric transmission line 

across the U.S.-Mexico border in eastern 

San Diego County, California. The 

potential environmental impacts 

associated with the transmission line 

are analyzed in the Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Energia Sierra 

Juarez U.S. Transmission Line Project 

(DOE/EIS–0414). The transmission line 

would originate at San Diego Gas and 

Electric’s planned East County 

Substation (ECO Substation), and 

extend southward approximately 0.65 

miles to the U.S. border with Mexico, 

near Jacumba, California, where it 

would cross the border and connect 

with a transmission line to be built in 

Mexico. 

ADDRESSES: The Final EIS is available 

on the DOE NEPA Web site at http:// 

energy.gov/nepa/nepa-documents and 

on the project Web site at http:// 

esjprojecteis.org/, and the ROD will be 

available on both Web sites in the near 

future. Copies of the Final EIS and this 

ROD may be requested by contacting 

Brian Mills, Office of Electricity 

Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE–20), 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, Phone (202) 

586–8267, email 

Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the Energia 

Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission Line 

EIS, contact Brian Mills as indicated in 

the ADDRESSES section above. For 

general information on the DOE NEPA 

process, contact Ms. Carol M. 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; by email at 

askNEPA@hq.doe.gov; or by facsimile at 

202–586–7031. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Executive Order (E.O.) 10485 

(September 9, 1953), as amended by 

E.O. 12038 (February 7, 1978), requires 

that a Presidential permit be issued by 

DOE before electricity transmission 

facilities may be constructed, operated, 

maintained, or connected at the U.S. 

border. DOE may issue or amend a 

permit if it determines that the permit 

is in the public interest and after 

obtaining favorable recommendations 

from the U.S. Departments of State and 

Defense. In determining whether 

issuance of a permit for a proposed 

action is in the public interest, DOE 

considers the potential environmental 

impacts of the proposed project, the 

project’s impact on electricity reliability 

by ascertaining whether the proposed 

project would adversely affect the 

operation of the U.S. electric power 

supply system under normal and 

contingency conditions, and any other 

factors that DOE considers relevant to 

the public interest. 

On December 18, 2007, ESJ, a 

subsidiary of Sempra U.S. Gas and 

Power, applied to DOE for a Presidential 

permit to construct, operate, maintain, 

and connect either a single-circuit, 500- 

kV electric transmission line or a 

double-circuit 230-kV electric 

transmission line across the U.S.- 

Mexico border. The electric 

transmission line would originate at San 

Diego Gas and Electric’s planned ECO 

Substation in San Diego County where 

it would interconnect with the Imperial 

Valley-Miguel segment of the Southwest 

Powerlink (SWPL) 500-kV transmission 

line. The transmission line would 

extend approximately 0.65 miles 

southward, crossing the U.S.-Mexico 

border near Jacumba, California, then 

continue approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) 

to an interconnection point inside 

Mexico. The total length of the 

transmission line would be 

approximately 1.65 miles (2.65 km), 

0.65 miles of which would be within the 

U.S. The proposed line would be 

constructed and owned by ESJ. 

The ESJ transmission line project 

would connect to the planned 1,250 

Megawatt (MW) ESJ Wind Project to be 

located in the general vicinity of La 

Rumorosa, Northern Baja California, 

Mexico. Delivery within California of 

the output of ESJ wind turbines in 

Mexico would be scheduled by the 

California Independent System Operator 

(CAISO). 

Consultation 

Under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act, DOE has completed 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service regarding impacts on 

Federally-listed threatened or 

endangered species in the area of the 

proposed project. Consultation under 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act was on-going at the 

time the Final EIS was issued. Since 

then, DOE has completed consultation 

with the California State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding 

potential impacts on historic properties, 

as confirmed in a June 29, 2012, letter 

of concurrence by California SHPO. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49790 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Notices 

NEPA Review 

DOE originally considered an 

environmental assessment (EA) (Baja 

Wind U.S. Transmission Environmental 

Assessment; DOE/EA–1608) to be the 

appropriate level of review under 

NEPA. DOE published a Notice of Intent 

to Prepare an Environmental 

Assessment and to Conduct Public 

Scoping Meetings in the Federal 

Register on August 4, 2008 (73 FR 

45218). In that notice DOE stated ‘‘if at 

any time during preparation of the EA 

DOE determines that an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) is needed * * * 

DOE will consider any comments on the 

scope of the EA received during [the EA 

scoping process] in preparing such an 

EIS.’’ After considering public 

comments on the EA, in January 2009, 

DOE decided to stop work on the EA 

and instead to prepare an EIS. 

DOE published a Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS in the Federal Register 

on February 25, 2009 (74 FR 8518). The 

County of San Diego was a cooperating 

agency in the preparation of the EIS. On 

September 17, 2010, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a Notice of Availability of the 

Draft EIS in the Federal Register (75 FR 

57005), which began a 45-day public 

comment period that ended on 

November 1, 2010. During the comment 

period, DOE held three public hearings 

on the Draft EIS. DOE considered all late 

comments received on the Draft EIS, 

including late comments received 

through September 2011, in the 

preparation of the Final EIS. 

DOE revised its action alternatives in 

the Final EIS to reflect a new location 

for the planned ECO Substation. As a 

result, four action alternatives were 

analyzed in the Final EIS. In May 2012, 

DOE published the Final EIS (DOE/EIS– 

0414), and a Notice of Availability of the 

Final EIS was published by the EPA in 

the Federal Register on June 8, 2012 (77 

FR 34041). 

Alternatives Considered 

In the draft EIS, DOE analyzed a No 

Action alternative and two action 

alternative routes. Under the No Action 

alternative (Alternative 1), DOE would 

not issue a Presidential permit for the 

proposed ESJ U.S. Transmission Line 

and the line would not be built. Under 

action alternative Alternative 2, the 

proposed transmission line would be 

constructed as a double-circuit 230-kV 

line, while action alternative Alternative 

3 would be constructed as a singlecircuit 500-kV line and would be 

located to the east of Alternative 2. The 

transmission lines analyzed in the 

action alternatives would be constructed 

with an overhead static ground wire 

running above the conductors with a 

fiber optic core for communication 

between the ESJ Jacume Substation in 

Mexico and the planned ECO Substation 

in the U.S. 

Following issuance of the Draft EIS, 

the proposed location for the ECO 

Substation was shifted approximately 

700 feet (213 meters) east of the original 

proposed location in order to avoid 

impacts to cultural resources. Due to 

these changes, revised alternative routes 

were analyzed in the Final EIS. The 

revised double-circuit 230-kV 

transmission line route was identified as 

Alternative 4A (DOE’s preferred 

alternative), and the revised singlecircuit 500-kV transmission line route 

was identified as Alternative 4B. All 

action alternatives would be located 

wholly within private property in 

eastern San Diego County near the 

unincorporated community of Jacumba. 

Analysis of Environmental Impacts 

The EIS analyzes potential impacts 

associated with the alternatives for each 

of the following resource areas: 

biological resources, visual resources, 

land use, recreation, cultural resources, 

noise, transportation and traffic, public 

health and safety, fire and fuels 

management, air quality and climate 

change, water resources, geology and 

soils, socioeconomics, environmental 

justice, and services and utilities. 

Implementation of the No Action 

alternative would not result in changes 

to existing conditions in the various 

resource areas. 

i. Potential environmental impacts 

from the action alternatives identified in 

the EIS and discussed in this section are 

based upon ESJ’s implementation of all 

Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs) 

and mitigation measures identified for 

each resource area in Section 2.11 of the 

Final EIS. 

Biological Resources: All action 

alternatives would result in permanent 

disturbance to approximately 10 acres of 

natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Minor temporary disturbances to 

wildlife and breeding birds during 

construction would be expected from 

increased noise and traffic during 

construction of the project. Under all 

action alternatives, some bird mortality 

could result from collisions with the 

transmission line even after mitigating 

measures are applied. No adverse effects 

to special status species are expected 

from any of the action alternatives. The 

information available indicates that the 

potential for impact on biological 

resources within the U.S. as a result of 

operation of the ESJ Wind Project in 

Mexico is not significant. 

Visual Resources: All action 

alternatives would result in permanent 

potentially moderate-to-major, longterm adverse visual impacts due to land 

scarring. Views of construction 

equipment and activity would result in 

a temporary moderate adverse impact. 

The long-term presence of the 

transmission line would result in a 

moderate adverse impact. 

Wind turbines planned for 

construction in Mexico as part of the 

ESJ Wind Project, including associated 

safety lighting, would be visible from 

several viewing points in the U.S., 

resulting in a potential long-term impact 

to individuals in the U.S. 

Cultural Resources: Under all action 

alternatives, the construction activity 

would result in the potential for minor 

impacts to currently unknown cultural 

resources. ESJ has incorporated 

measures into its project design to 

eliminate potential impacts to eleven 

(11) known prehistoric archaeological 

sites in the Area of Potential Effect 

(APE) defined for the proposed 

transmission line. 

Since ESJ plans to access water from 

the Jacumba Community Services 

District, a previously identified 

potential for impact to Site CA–SDI– 

4455, which is near the previously 

proposed water well access road, is no 

longer applicable. 

Noise: Construction of the 

transmission line would result in 

temporary minor increases in ambient 

noise levels. These levels would be 

below the county noise ordinance at the 

nearest receptor site located 

approximately 1,600 feet west of the 

construction area. Operation of the 

transmission line would introduce a 

sporadic low noise as a result of the 

corona effect. The 230-kV configurations 

would result in an approximate 

maximum of 8.8 dBA (decibels on an Aweighted scale) at the property line. 

This is below the County ordinance for 

nighttime property line sound level 

limit of 45 dBA. With regard to the 500- 

kV route alternatives, two of the four 

potential conductor configurations fall 

below the county nighttime property 

line sound level limit, at 35.4 dBA and 

36.8 dBA. The preferred alternative 

would not exceed the limits imposed by 

the County of San Diego’s ordinance. 

Transportation and Traffic: The 

action alternatives would result in a 

minor temporary increase in traffic on 

local roadways, a minor potential for 

adverse impacts to traffic safety at the 

project’s ingress/egress, and a short-term 

minor potential for roadway damage 

from construction activities. ESJ is 

working with the County of San Diego 

to develop a traffic control plan, road 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Notices 49791 

improvements, and a site entrance in 

accordance with the County of San 

Diego’s traffic safety design standards. 

The area near the proposed 

transmission lines is frequented by lowflying aircraft operated by the U.S. 

Border Patrol and by the California 

Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection. The transmission line would 

result in a minor potential for adverse 

impacts to air traffic safety. 

Public Health and Safety: There 

would be little potential to expose the 

public to hazardous materials or 

contaminated soil as a result of 

construction of the transmission line. 

Construction materials would be 

managed to minimize potential storm 

water contact, and the small amounts of 

potential hazardous waste would be 

disposed in accordance with local, state, 

and Federal regulations. 

There are no public trails, recreation 

areas, or other developments to cause 

members of the public to linger near the 

transmission lines. All action 

alternatives incorporate grounding 

features in accordance with industry 

standards for electrical transmission 

structures to reduce the potential impact 

of induced currents and electrical field 

interference. The highest 

electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure at 

the nearest residence would be far 

below typical household levels. 

Fire and Fuels Management: 

Construction of the transmission line 

would increase the potential risk 

associated with wildfire as a result of 

new ignition sources, introduction of 

invasive non-native plants, and the 

creation of a potential obstacle to 

firefighting. The San Diego Rural Fire 

Protection District has approved ESJ’s 

Fire Protection Plan. Also, ESJ has 

worked with the District to agree upon 

methods to protect against fire. 

Potential impacts to habitat and 

vegetation in the U.S. could result from 

a wildfire originating in Mexico and 

spreading across the U.S.–Mexico 

border. 

Air Quality and Climate Change: 

Maximum emissions resulting from any 

of the action alternatives are estimated 

to be well below applicable thresholds. 

Temporary minor impacts from air 

emissions during construction and 

operation are expected due to minor 

short-term increases in criteria 

pollutants (organic gases, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

oxides and fugitive dust). 

Because it will transmit electricity 

generated from a renewable energy 

generating source (wind turbines), 

operation of the transmission line could 

facilitate a reduction in greenhouse gas 

emissions from other sources. 

Geology and Soils: Under all action 

alternatives construction of the 

transmission line would result in a 

minor temporary increase in soil 

disturbance and erosion during 

construction. There is potential for longterm minor erosion impacts during 

operation of the proposed transmission 

line. Onsite soils have a high potential 

to corrode steel, but potential impacts of 

corrosion on operation of the 

transmission line would be minor. 

During operations there would be a 

minor potential for structural damage or 

failure as a result of seismic groundshaking. However, the transmission line 

and overhead structures are designed to 

exceed earthquake loads, resulting in 

minimal potential for damage. No 

impacts related to soil liquefaction or 

slope instability are anticipated. 

The Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative 

DOE has determined that there are no 

discernible differences in the 

environmental impacts of the action 

alternatives. Because DOE’s preferred 

230-kV alternative would employ 

slightly smaller towers, thereby 

minimizing the overall footprint of the 

proposed project, Alternative 4A is 

identified as the environmentally 

preferred alternative. 

Comments Received on the Final EIS 

Comments on the Final EIS were 

received from EPA Region IX on June 

27, 2012, and from Stephen C. Volker 

attorney for Backcountry Against 

Dumps, the Protect Our Communities 

Foundation, East County Community 

Action Coalition, and Donna Tisdale 

(Collectively, ‘‘Community Groups’’) on 

July 10, 2012. Comments received on 

the Final EIS are available on the project 

Web site identified above. 

The EPA Region IX comments on the 

Final EIS acknowledge DOE’s responses 

to EPA’s comments on the Draft EIS and 

raise no new issues. EPA states its 

appreciation for information added to 

the Final EIS that supports 

environmentally preferable outcomes. 

The Community Groups’ comments 

reiterate the Community Groups 

November 2010 comments on the Draft 

EIS. The comments and DOE responses 

are identified as 401–1 through 401–17 

in the Final EIS Comment and Response 

Document (Volume 3). The Community 

Group disagrees with the DOE 

responses. DOE affirms its previous 

responses to comments 401–1 through 

401–17. 

Decision 

DOE has decided to issue Presidential 

Permit PP–334 to authorize ESJ to 

construct, operate, maintain, and 

connect a Double-Circuit 230-kV 

transmission line across the U.S. border. 

This action, Alternative 4A, is identified 

as DOE’s preferred alternative in the 

EIS. The permit will include a condition 

requiring ESJ to implement mitigation 

measures identified in the EIS. 

Before granting a Presidential permit, 

DOE must determine if a proposed 

international electric transmission line 

would have an adverse impact on the 

reliability of the U.S. electric power 

supply system. In reaching this 

determination, DOE considers the 

operation of the electrical grid with a 

specified maximum amount of electric 

power transmitted over the proposed 

line. 

DOE reviewed the generation 

interconnection studies conducted by 

CAISO for the first phase of the ESJ 

planned wind generation facility 

currently in the CAISO interconnection 

queue to connect to the U.S. grid. These 

studies are available on the project Web 

site. 

CAISO completed the study for the 

first phase of 400 MW of wind 

generation and executed an 

interconnection agreement with ESJ 

U.S. Transmission (Standard Large 

Generator Interconnection Agreement 

(LGIA)—ESJ Wind (Queue No. 159A), 

CAISO, October 26, 2011). The studies 

for the second and third phases of the 

planned ESJ wind generation have not 

been completed. 

Mitigation 

Avoidance and minimization of 

potential environmental impacts was a 

consideration in the identification and 

selection of the preferred alternative. 

The alignment of DOE’s preferred 

alternative avoids some cultural 

resources potentially affected by 

Alternatives 2 and 3. DOE’s Presidential 

permit will contain a condition that 

requires ESJ to implement projectspecific mitigation measures and 

protective measures proposed by the 

Applicant (APMs) that are identified in 

the Final EIS. With the implementation 

of the preferred alternative and 

inclusion of the mitigation measures, 

DOE has employed all practicable 

means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the design, 

construction and operation of the 

preferred alternative. 

Basis for Decision 

In arriving at its decision, DOE has 

considered the potential environmental 

impacts of the proposed project, the 

project’s impact on electricity reliability 

by ascertaining whether the proposed 

project would adversely affect the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49792 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2012 / Notices 

operation of the U.S. electric power 

supply system under normal and 

contingency conditions, and any other 

factors that DOE may consider relevant 

to the public interest. 

DOE has determined that the potential 

impacts from the Route for the DoubleCircuit 230-kV Transmission Line are 

expected to be small, as discussed 

above. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

will issue Presidential Permit PP–334 to 

authorize ESJ to construct, operate, 

maintain, and connect the Energia 

Sierra Juarez U.S. Double-Circuit 230-kV 

Transmission Line across the U.S. 

border. Presidential Permit PP–334 will 

limit the project to a maximum of 400 

MW. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 

2012. 

Patricia A. Hoffman, 

Assistant Secretary of Energy Electricity, 

Delivery and Energy Reliability. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20234 Filed 8–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9004–5] 

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 08/06/2012 Through 

08/10/2012 

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: Starting 

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. 20120264, Final EIS, USFS, CA, 

On Top Hazardous Fuels Reduction 

Project, To Disclose the 

Environmental Effects of a Federal 

Proposal on National Forest System 

(NFS) Land, Plumas National Forest, 

Feather River Ranger District, Plumas, 

Butte Counties, CA, Review Period 

Ends: 09/17/2012, Contact: Carol 

Spinos 530–534–6500. 

EIS No. 20120265, Draft EIS, FHWA, 

MT, Billings Bypass Improvements, 

Connecting Interstate 90 (I–90) east of 

Billings with Old Highway (Old Hwy 

312), Possible USACE Section 10 and 

404 Permits, Yellowstone County, 

MT, Comment Period Ends: 10/01/ 

2012, Contact: Brian Hasselbach 406– 

441–3908. 

EIS No. 20120266, Draft EIS, USFS, CO, 

Village at Wolf Creek Access Project, 

Conveyance of Non-Federal Land to 

the U.S. in Exchange for National 

Forest System Lands Managed by the 

Rio Grande National Forest, Mineral 

County, CO, Comment Period Ends: 

10/01/2012, Contact: Harold Dyer 

719–852–6215. 

EIS No. 20120267, Draft EIS, USN, VA, 

Outdoor Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation Activities within the 

Potomac River Test Range and 

Explosives Experimental Area 

Complexes, the Mission Area and 

Special-Use Airspace at Naval 

Support Facility Dahlgren, Expansion, 

Dahlgren, VA, Comment Period Ends: 

10/01/2012, Contact: Jennifer Boyd 

540–653–8695. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20120184, Draft EIS, NOAA, 00, 

Issuing Annual Quotas to the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) 

for a Subsistence Hunt on Bowhead 

Whales for the Years 2013 through 

2017/2018, Comment Period Ends: 

08/31/2012, Contact: Ellen Sebastian 

907–586–7247. Revision to FR Notice 

Published 06/15/2012; Extending 

Comment Period from 08/14/2012 to 

08/31/2012. 

EIS No. 20120197, Draft EIS, USFS, ID, 

Golden Hand No. 1 and No. 2 Lode 

Mining Claims Project, Krassel Ranger 

District, Payette National Forest, 

Valley and Idaho Counties, ID, 

Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2012, 

Contact: Jeff Hunteman 208–634– 

0434. Revision to FR Notice Published 

06/29/2012; Extending Comments 

Period from 08/13/2012 to 09/17/ 

2012. 

EIS No. 20120263, Final EIS, USFS, CA, 

Barren Ridge Renewable 

Transmission Project, Construct, 

Operate, Maintain, and Upgrade 

220kV Electrical Transmission Lines 

and Switching Stations, Kern and Los 

Angeles Counties, CA, Review Period 

Ends: 09/10/2012, Contact: Justin 

Seastrand 626–574–5278(AFS), 

Lynette Elser 951–697–5233(BLM). 

Revision to FR Notice Published 08/ 

10/2012; Review Period ends 09/10/212. 

More information on the U.S. Forest 

Service’s appeal process is available at 

http://www.ladwp.com/barrenridge. 

Dated: July 14, 2012. 

Aimee Hessert, 

Deputy Director, NEPA Compliance Division, 

Office of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20248 Filed 8–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0442; FRL–9356–5] 

FIFRA Pesticide Registration Review 

and ESA Consultation Processes; 

Proposal Regarding Stakeholder Input; 

Request for Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: EPA is seeking public 

comment on a proposal to enhance 

opportunities for stakeholders to 

provide input during its review of 

pesticide registrations under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) and associated 

consultations under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 

proposal was jointly prepared by EPA, 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) in the U.S. Department 

of Commerce and the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) in the U.S. 

Department of Interior. The proposal 

describes significant changes to EPA’s 

registration review process which are 

intended to facilitate ESA pesticide 

consultations and coordination across 

these Federal agencies, and calls for a 

greater role for USDA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2012–0442, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES