34754 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 

Placentia and Anaheim, Orange 

County, CA, Wait Period Ends: 08/17/ 

2009, Contact: Scott K. McHenry 916– 

498–5854. 

EIS No. 20090237, Draft EIS, UMC, NC, 

U.S. Marine Corps Grow the Force at 

MCB Camp Lejeune, MCAS New 

River, and MCAS Cherry Point, To 

Provide the Infrastructure to Support 

the Permanent Increases at these three 

Installations, U.S. Army Corps 

Section 404 and 10 Permits, City of 

Jacksonville, NC, Comment Period 

Ends: 09/01/2009, Contact: Michael 

H. Jones 757–322–4942. 

EIS No. 20090238, Final EIS, USN, VA, 

Norfolk Harbor Channel, Proposed 

Dredging to Deepen Five Miles of the 

Federal Navigation Channel in the 

Elizabeth River from Lamberts Bend 

to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

(NNSY), Norfolk and Portsmouth, VA, 

Wait Period Ends: 08/17/2009, 

Contact: John Conway 904–542–6159. 

EIS No. 20090239, Draft EIS, AFS, OR, 

Big Summit Allotment Management 

Plan, Proposes to Reauthorize Cattle 

Term Grazing Permits, Construct 

Range Improvements, and Restore 

Riparian Vegetation on Five 

Allotments, Lookout Mountain Ranger 

District, Ochoco National Forest, 

Crook County, OR, Comment Period 

Ends: 08/31/2009, Contact: Marcy 

Anderson 541–416–6463. 

EIS No. 20090240, Final EIS, FhW, NC, 

NC–119 Relocation Project, 

Transportation Improvement from the 

I–185/40 Interchange Southwest of 

Mebane to Existing NC–119 south of 

NC–1918 (Mrs. White Lane) Mebane, 

Right-of-Way Acquisition, Alamance 

County, NC, Wait Period Ends: 08/17/ 

2009, Contact: John F. Sullivan 919– 

856–4346 Ext. 122. 

EIS No. 20090241, Draft EIS, IBR, KS, 

Aquifer Storage Recharge and 

Recovery Project, To Provide 

Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water 

to City and Surrounding Region, 

Equus Beds Division, Wichita Project, 

Kansas, Harvey, Sedgwick, and Reno 

Counties, KS, Comment Period Ends: 

09/11/2009, Contact: Charles Webster 

405–470–4807. 

EIS No. 20090242, Draft EIS, IBR, CA, 

Delta-Mendota Canal/California 

Aqueduct Intertie Project, 

Construction and Operation of a 

Pumping Plant and Pipeline 

Connection, San Luis Delta-Mendota 

Water Authority Project, Central 

Valley Project, Alameda and San 

Joaquin Counties, CA, Comment 

Period Ends: 08/31/2009, Contact: 

Sharon McHale 916–978–5086. 

EIS No. 20090243, Final EIS, COE, FL, 

C–111 Spreader Canal Western 

Project, To Restore Ecosystem 

Function in Taylor Slough and 

Florida Bay Areas, Central and 

Southern Florida Project, 

Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP), Everglades 

National Park, Miami-Dade County, 

FL, Wait Period Ends: 08/17/2009, 

Contact: Alisa Zarbo 561–472–3516. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20090170, Draft EIS, FHW, WI, 

Zoo Interchange Corridor Study, 

Reconstruction to I0–94 from 70th 

Street to 124th Street and on US 45 

from Burleigh Street to I–894/US 45 

and Lincoln Avenue in Milwaukee 

County, WI, Comment Period Ends: 

08/10/2009, Contact: Allen Radliff 

608–829–7500. Revision to FR Notice 

Published 05/29/2009: Extending 

Comment Period from 07/13/2009 to 

08/10/2009. 

EIS No. 20090232, Draft EIS, BIA, CA, 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians 

Horseshoe Grande Fee-to-Trust 

Project, Construction of a Hotel and 

Casino, City of San Jacinto, Riverside 

County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 

09/15/2009, Contact: Pat O’Mallan 

916–978–6044. Revision to FR Notice 

Published 07/10/2009: Correction to 

the Telephone number from 916–978– 

6043 to 916–978–6044. 

Dated: July 14, 2009. 

Clifford Rader, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E9–17089 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8595–5] 

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) as follows: 

Summary of Rating Definitions 

Environmental Impact of the Action 

LO—Lack of Objections 

The EPA review has not identified 

any potential environmental impacts 

requiring substantive changes to the 

proposal. The review may have 

disclosed opportunities for application 

of mitigation measures that could be 

accomplished with no more than minor 

changes to the proposal. 

EC—Environmental Concerns 

The EPA review has identified 

environmental impacts that should be 

avoided in order to fully protect the 

environment. Corrective measures may 

require changes to the preferred 

alternative or application of mitigation 

measures that can reduce the 

environmental impact. EPA would like 

to work with the lead agency to reduce 

these impacts. 

EO—Environmental Objections 

The EPA review has identified 

significant environmental impacts that 

should be avoided in order to provide 

adequate protection for the 

environment. Corrective measures may 

require substantial changes to the 

preferred alternative or consideration of 

some other project alternative 

(including the no action alternative or a 

new alternative). EPA intends to work 

with the lead agency to reduce these 

impacts. 

EU—Environmentally Unsatisfactory 

The EPA review has identified 

adverse environmental impacts that are 

of sufficient magnitude that they are 

unsatisfactory from the standpoint of 

public health or welfare or 

environmental quality. EPA intends to 

work with the lead agency to reduce 

these impacts. If the potentially 

unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected 

at the final EIS stage, this proposal will 

be recommended for referral to the CEQ. 

Adequacy of the Impact Statement 

Category 1—Adequate 

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately 

sets forth the environmental impact(s) of 

the preferred alternative and those of 

the alternatives reasonably available to 

the project or action. No further analysis 

or data collection is necessary, but the 

reviewer may suggest the addition of 

clarifying language or information. 

Category 2—Insufficient Information 

The draft EIS does not contain 

sufficient information for EPA to fully 

assess environmental impacts that 

should be avoided in order to fully 

protect the environment, or the EPA 

reviewer has identified new reasonably 

available alternatives that is within the 

spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the 

draft EIS, which could reduce the 

environmental impacts of the action. 

The identified additional information, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 34755 

data, analyses, or discussion should be 

included in the final EIS. 

Category 3—Inadequate 

EPA does not believe that the draft 

EIS adequately assesses potentially 

significant environmental impacts of the 

action, or the EPA reviewer has 

identified new, reasonably available 

alternatives that is outside of the 

spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the 

draft EIS, which should be analyzed in 

order to reduce the potentially 

significant environmental impacts. EPA 

believes that the identified additional 

information, data, analyses, or 

discussions are of such a magnitude that 

they should have full public review at 

a draft stage. EPA does not believe that 

the draft EIS is adequate for the 

purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 

309 review, and thus should be formally 

revised and made available for public 

comment in a supplemental or revised 

draft EIS. On the basis of the potential 

significant impacts involved, this 

proposal could be a candidate for 

referral to the CEQ. 

Draft EISs 

EIS No. 20090133, ERP No. D–NPS– 

D61064–MD, Monocacy National 

Battlefield, General Management Plan, 

Implementation, Frederick County, 

MD. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed project. Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20090145, ERP No. D–NPS– 

H61024–IA, Effigy Mounds National 

Monument General Management Plan, 

Implementation, Clayton and 

Allamakee Counties, IA. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed project. Rating LO. 

EIS No. 20090151, ERP No. D–NPS– 

K65365–CA, Prisoners Harbor Coastal 

Wetland Restoration Project, Proposes 

to Restore a Functional, SelfSustaining Ecosystem at a Coastal 

Wetland Site, Channel Islands 

National Park, Santa Cruz Island, 

Santa Barbara County, CA. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed project, but offered 

suggestions to reduce the impact of 

invasive species and dust during 

construction. Rating LO. 

Final EISs 

EIS No. 20090129, ERP No. F–AFS– 

K65346–CA, Round Valley Fuels 

Reduction and Vegetation 

Management Project, Proposes to 

Reduce Fuel and Manage Vegetation, 

Funding, Goosenest Ranger District, 

Klamath National Forest, Siskiyou 

County, CA. 

Summary: No formal comment letter 

was sent to the preparing agency. 

EIS No. 20090182, ERP No. F–USA– 

K11038–HI, Makua Military 

Reservation (MMR) Project, Proposed 

Military Training Activities, To 

Conduct the Necessary Type, Level, 

Duration, and Intensity of Live-Fire 

and other Military Training Activities, 

in Particular Company-Level 

Combined-Arms, Live-Fire Exercises 

(CALFEX), 25th Infantry Division 

(Light) and U.S. Army, HI. 

Summary: EPA continues to have 

environmental concerns about the 

contamination of soil and water 

resources at Makua Military 

Reservation. 

EIS No. 20090187, ERP No. F–CGD– 

A11083–00, PROGRAMMATIC— 

Future of the US Coast Guard Long 

Range Aids to Navigation (LORAN–C) 

Program, Implementation. 

Summary: EPA does not object to the 

proposed action. 

Dated: July 14, 2009. 

Clifford Rader, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E9–17090 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–8931–2] 

Casmalia Disposal Site; Notice of 

Proposed CERCLA Administrative De 

Minimis Settlement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice; request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

122(i) of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, as 

amended (CERCLA) and section 7003 of 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), the EPA is hereby 

providing notice of a proposed 

administrative de minimis settlement 

concerning the Casmalia Disposal Site 

in Santa Barbara County, California (the 

Casmalia Disposal Site). Section 122(g) 

of CERCLA provides EPA with the 

authority to enter into administrative de 

minimis settlements. This settlement is 

intended to resolve the liabilities of 35 

settling parties for the Casmalia 

Disposal Site under sections 106 and 

107 of CERCLA and section 7003 of 

RCRA, and also to resolve their liability 

for response costs and potential natural 

resource damage claims by the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

and the United States Air Force (USAF). 

These parties, identified below, 

originally received settlement offers in 

1999 or 2000 but raised an issue that has 

now been resolved. Most of those 

resolving their liability to the EPA have 

also elected to resolve their liability for 

response costs and potential natural 

resource damage claims by the USFWS, 

NOAA and the USAF. The settling 

parties sent 12,776,838 lbs. of waste to 

the Site, which represents 0.228% of 

total Site waste. This settlement requires 

these parties to pay over $1.25 million 

to EPA. EPA is simultaneously 

publishing another Federal Register 

Notice relating to another settlement 

with de minimis parties that had 

received offers between 2005 and 2008. 

Settling Parties: Parties that have 

elected to settle their liability at this 

time are as follows: Advanced Coatings 

& Chemical; AK Steel Corporation, 

Successor by Merger to Armco, Inc.; 

Barron Anodizing & Paint; BioResearch, 

Inc.; C&W Pallet Enterprises, Inc.; City 

of San Jose; CTS Corporation (CTS 

Keene, Inc.); CTS Printex Inc.; E.C. 

Loomis & Son; General Atomics; Goleta 

Water District; Guadalupe Union School 

District; Kevex Corporation; Lear Siegler 

Diversified Holdings Corp.; Paccar, Inc.; 

Plessey Semiconductors, Inc.; 

Redevelopment Agency of the City of 

San Jose; Rosemary Farm; Santa Palm 

Car Wash; Saticoy Lemon Association; 

Siemens Communications, Inc.; 

Siemens Energy & Automation Inc.; 

Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., 

Oncology Care Systems Group; SMI 

Holding, LLC; Sweetwater Union High 

School District; Technitron 

Incorporated; Texas Instruments Tucson 

Corporation (f/k/a Burr-Brown Research 

Corporation); Tenneco Packaging, Inc. 

(n/k/a Pactiv Corporation); Thermo 

Finnigan LLC, Formerly Finnigan 

Corporation; Thermo Securities 

Corporation (as Successor to Cal-Doran 

Metallurgical Service); Thermo 

Separation Products, Inc.; U.S. Coast 

Guard; U.S. Department of Interior; U.S. 

Department of Veteran Affairs; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

DATES: EPA will receive written 

comments relating to the settlement 

until August 17, 2009. EPA will 

consider all comments it receives during 

this period, and may modify or 

withdraw consent to the settlement if 

any comments disclose facts or 

considerations indicating that the 

settlement is inappropriate, improper, 

or inadequate. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES