[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 57 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 17930]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06753]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL- 9793-8]

National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-009 Draft Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given for a 45-day public review and comment
period on the draft report of the National Rivers and Streams
Assessment 2008-2009 (NRSA). The NRSA draft report describes the
results of the nationwide probabilistic survey that was conducted in
the summers of 2008 and 2009. EPA and its state/tribal partners looked
at biological conditions in rivers and streams of the conterminous
United States. The draft NRSA 2008-2009 report includes information on
how the survey was implemented, what the findings were on a national
and ecoregional scale, and future actions and challenges.

DATES: Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. May 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Email your comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Mayio, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, Office of Water, Washington DC Phone: 202-566-
1184; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To better answer questions about the
condition of waters across the country, EPA and its state and tribal
partners have embarked on a series of surveys under the National
Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) program. The draft NRSA 2008-2009 is
the most recent in this series of surveys. The goals of the draft NRSA
2008-2009 are to:

 Generate scientifically valid and environmentally relevant
information on the condition of the nation's river and stream resources
 Identify key stressors to river and stream health and explore
their relative importance
     Establish baseline information for future trends
assessment
    Using a statistical survey design, sites were selected at random to
represent the condition of the larger population of rivers and streams
across the lower 48 states, from the largest ``great rivers'' to the
smallest headwater streams. 1,924 sites were sampled.
    The draft NRSA finds that 55% of the nation's river and stream
miles do not support healthy biological communities when compared to
least disturbed sites in similar ecological regions. Fair conditions
are found in 23% of river and stream miles, while 21% are in good
condition and support healthy aquatic communities. Of the stressors
that were examined, phosphorus and nitrogen are the most widespread.
Biological communities are at increased risk for poor condition when
phosphorus and nitrogen levels are high. This is the first time a
national monitoring study of the overall condition of rivers and
streams has been conducted using a statistically-valid random sample
approach.
    The draft report has undergone State and EPA review. EPA, through
this public review, is seeking comment on the information contained in
the draft report, the reasonableness of the conclusions, and the
clarity with which the information is presented. You may view and
download the draft report from EPA's Web site at http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/riverssurvey/index.cfm.

    Dated: March 14, 2013.
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2013-06753 Filed 3-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43733-43735]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18506]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0062]

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of denial of a petition submitted to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under 49 U.S.C.
30162, requesting that the Agency commence a proceeding to determine
the existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety in Michelin
Model XZU-3, size 305/85/R22.5 Load Range J transit bus tires. After a
review of the petition and other information, NHTSA has concluded that
a defects investigation is unlikely to result in a finding that a
defect related to motor vehicle safety exists, or a NHTSA order for the
notification and remedy of a safety related defect as alleged, at the
conclusion of the requested investigation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce York, Medium & Heavy Duty
Vehicle Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated July 14, 2016, Paul Koleber
from Intercity Transit wrote to NHTSA requesting that the Agency
investigate the existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety
in Michelin Model XZU-3, size 305/85/R22.5 Load Range J transit bus
tires. Mr. Koleber alleges the tires are structurally unsound and that
this defect can result in sidewall blowouts at any time whether the
tires are new or re-tread. Mr. Koleber stated that Michelin had
previously recalled similar tires (12T-009) and the Intercity Transit
fleet experienced failures with the same characteristics as those
specified in the recall. Mr. Koleber submitted a forensics lab report
from CASE Forensics to support his allegation.
    NHTSA has reviewed the material provided by the petitioner and
other information. The results of this review and NHTSA's analysis of
the petition are set forth in the DP17-001 Evaluation Report, published
in its entirety as an appendix to this notice.
    For the reasons presented in the DP17-001 Evaluation Report, it is
unlikely that a defects investigation will result in a finding that a
defect related to motor vehicle safety exists. It is also unlikely that
an order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect
would be issued as a result of granting Mr. Koleber's request.
Therefore, the petition is denied. This action does not constitute a
finding by NHTSA that a safety related defect does not exist. The
Agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.

Nate Seymour
Safety Defects Engineer
NEF-106ns
DP17-001

BASIS:

    Paul Koleber, from Intercity Transit petitioned the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by letter dated July 14,
2016, requesting that a defect investigation be conducted concerning
motor vehicle safety in Michelin Model XZU-3, size 305/85/R22.5 Load
Range J transit bus tires. The facts described in this report are based
on the Office of Defect Investigations' (ODI) assessment of the
information provided by the petitioner and information gathered by ODI
from relevant sources.
    The petitioner alleged that a defect exists involving the design of
tires used in commercial bus operations which have resulted in rapid
air loss. The petitioner claimed that failures identical to those
described in recall 12T-009 have happened on the subject post recall
tires. The petitioner stated that failures occurred on steer and drive
wheel positions of both new and retread tires. The petitioner hired a
forensics lab to perform scientific failure analysis of failed tires.
The lab concluded the tires were of similar design and construction to
those in recall 12T-009 and that the failures were caused by corrosion
induced degradation of the ply strands.

DESCRIPTION OF TIRE:

    The subject tires are Michelin XZU-3, size 305/85/R22.5 Load Range
J transit bus tires. They are designed to be

used in all wheel positions for urban operations involving frequent
stopping and starting. The tread pattern is non-directional and
designed for efficient traction on wet and slippery surfaces through
Michelin's patented Matrix Siping technology. The tires have a robust
casing and bead design to allow for retreading. The sidewalls are extra
thick to resist curb scrub and include scrub depth indicators to aid
inspection of the tires to help extend casing life.

OWNER REPORTS:

    The Office of Defects Investigation received two (2) complaints
related to Michelin XZU-3 transit bus tires. The first Vehicle Owner's
Questionnaire (VOQ) was received in April 2012, the same month that
voluntary recall 12T-009 was received from Michelin. A second VOQ was
received in April 2017, one month after DP17-001 was opened to assess
failures on Michelin XZU-3 transit bus tires. Both reports were
submitted by transit fleets. Neither VOQ alleged any crashes, injuries
or fatalities.

ANALYSIS:

    On March 23, 2017, ODI sent Michelin an Information Request letter
asking for information related to the subject tires. Michelin's
response was received May 5, 2017, where design and application data
were presented. ODI's assessment of that data follows.
    Michelin reported a tire population (2012-2014 production) of
17,487 subject tires. The subject tire was discontinued in 2014, upon
the introduction of the X InCity Z 305/85R22.5 LRJ tire, which offers
increased scrub resistance. The initial tread life of the subject tire
is expected to range from 60,000 to 100,000 miles. The casing life is
expected to range from two (2) to four (4) years, with one (1) to three
(3) retread applications. Therefore, a limited number of subject tires
are believed to still be in service.
    When asked how Michelin determined the recall population for 12T-
009, Michelin stated that the bead design of the recalled tires had
undergone a design change. A reduction in the number of strands was
determined to be the cause of failures associated with recall 12T-009.
Once the defect was identified, Michelin reinstated the original bead
design specification, which marked the endpoint of the recall
population. The scope of the recalled tires included tires manufactured
from the date of the bead design change through the date when the
design was changed back to the original specification.
    The tires identified by the petitioner were produced after the bead
design was corrected.
    Michelin queried its databases and found no complaints and one
claim for property damage on tires manufactured after the 12T-009
recall scope. Michelin denied this claim based on the following.
Michelin evaluated twelve (12) tires from the fleet. All had been
retreaded one time, but not at a Michelin Retread Technologies (MRT)
approved facility. Michelin's analysis of the tires revealed
operational or maintenance failures in ten (10) of the twelve (12)
tires. These tires had high levels of moisture and damage or evidence
of damage repair adjacent to the rupture. The combination of these
conditions allows for corrosion to develop in the belt package, which
leads to failure. The other two (2) could not be determined. ODI
queried its database and found one (1) Vehicle Owner Questionnaire
(VOQ) related to the subject population, which was received after the
investigation was opened. In March 2017, Michelin visited the fleet
that submitted the VOQ, and analyzed its tires. Similar to the property
damage claim above, an MRT was not used. Nor was an air dryer for tire
inflation. This leaves in question the integrity of the casings and
moisture content which is detrimental to tire life. Michelin submitted
to ODI, inspection documentation. Reports of the tires showed signs of
overloading. Personnel interviews supported these findings as the fleet
followed the vehicle manufacturer's recommended inflation pressure,
which is known to be inadequate for true operational loads on the
specific vehicles operated by the fleet.
    MRT facilities utilize inspection equipment not available to out of
network retread facilities. The use of Grazing Light Inspection, X-ray,
and Casing Integrity Analyzer (CIA) minimize the risk of tire failure
after retreading. MRT facilities also utilize approved processes to
repair tire damage prior to retreading to prevent moisture from
entering the belt package.
    The Altoona Bus Study, Michelin's weight study of fleet buses, and
ODI's weight study are all in agreement. Each independently found that
the Gillig Low Floor 40' transit bus as used by the petitioner and
other fleets would be overloaded with a foreseeable load. And, the
greatest overloading would occur at the left rear wheel-end. ODI went
further to assess the average passenger weight. ODI found that the 150-
pound weight specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 49
C.F.R. Part 567.4(g)(3) and Subtitle B-Chapter VI Part 665 Subpart A is
not representative of today's population. The 150-pound value was
established in 1971 based on data derived from the National Health
Examination Survey from 1960-1962. A more recent value from the
National Center for Health Statistics determined the average male and
female weight to be 195 and 165 respectively. In both cases, the study
participants were not truck/bus drivers or transit passengers. ODI
notes that a luggage allowance for each passenger is necessary given
the vehicle usage. ODI also surveyed heavy vehicle manufacturers to
learn what design weight they use for the driver. Responses ranged from
150 to 312 pounds depending on market. The Federal Transit Authority
(FTA) initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) action in 2011,
to increase the average passenger weight and standing passenger floor
space square footage, but this rule was never enacted.
    As required by 49 CFR part 567, the vehicle manufacturer is
responsible for the data on the vehicle certification label. The
manufacturer will set the tire pressure based on the anticipated axle
load. The anticipated loads will drive the selection of components to
meet the owner's specifications.
    Michelin released a Technical Bulletin in November 2015,
recommending 120 psi be used in all subject tires. Michelin met with
Gillig in January 2016, and recommended the use of 315/80R22.5 tires
and an inflation pressure of 120 psi to provide sufficient load-
carrying capacity to support actual loads. Gillig, who produced the
petitioner's buses, elected not to adopt this action.

CONCLUSION:

     Based on the available information and previous agency experience,
ODI believes the tires manufactured after those identified in recall
12T-009 failed as a result of overloading by the fleets operating the
buses. In our view, a defects investigation is unlikely to result in a
finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety exists, or a
NHTSA order for the notification and remedy of a safety related defect
as alleged, at the conclusion of the requested investigation.
Therefore, given a thorough analysis of the potential for finding a
safety related defect in the vehicle, and in view of NHTSA's
enforcement priorities and its previous investigations into this issue,
the petition is denied. This action does not constitute a finding by
NHTSA that a safety related defect does not exist. The

Agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.

RECOMMENDATION:

    Deny the petition.

CONCUR:
    Bruce York, Chief
    Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicle
    Defects & Assessment Division

[FR Doc. 2018-18506 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37717-37719]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14908]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2012-0889; FRL-9826-9]

Adequacy Status of the Submitted 2009 and 2025 PM2.5
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity Purposes
for New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is notifying the public that we have found
that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and
NOX in the submitted maintenance plans for the New Jersey
portions of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT, and
Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, PM2.5 nonattainment areas
to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The
transportation conformity rule requires that the EPA conduct a public
process and make an affirmative decision on the adequacy of budgets
before they can be used by metropolitan planning organizations in
conformity determinations. As a result of our finding, two metropolitan
planning organizations in New Jersey (the North Jersey Transportation
Planning Authority and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission) must use the new 2009 and 2025 PM2.5 budgets for
future transportation conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective July 9, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Laurita, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency--Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,
New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The finding and the response to comments will be available at EPA's
conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 26, 2012, New Jersey submitted redesignation requests
and maintenance plans to EPA for both the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island, NY-NJ-CT (Northern New Jersey), and Philadelphia-
Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE (Southern New Jersey), PM2.5
nonattainment areas. The purpose of New Jersey's submittal was to
request a redesignation to attainment for both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
submit a state implementation plan to provide for maintenance of the
standard for the first ten years of a 20-year maintenance period. New
Jersey's request was pursuant to EPA's findings that that the Northern
New Jersey area had attained the 1997 (75 FR 69589) and 2006 (77 FR
76867) PM2.5 NAAQS, and that the Southern New Jersey area
had attained the 1997 (77 FR 28782) and 2006 (78 FR 882)
PM2.5 NAAQS, based on ambient air quality monitoring data.
New Jersey's submittal included motor vehicle emissions budgets
(``budgets'') for 2009 and 2025 for use by the State's metropolitan
planning organizations in making transportation conformity
determinations. On September 12, 2012, EPA posted the availability of
the budgets our Web site for the purpose of soliciting public comments.
The comment period closed on October 12, 2012, and we received no
comments.
    New Jersey developed these budgets, as required, for the last year
of its maintenance plan, 2025, and an additional year, 2009, for the
purpose of establishing budgets for the near-term based on EPA's MOVES
model. Previously established and approved budgets had been based on
MOBILE6.2. New Jersey also determined that budgets based on annual
emissions of direct PM2.5 and NOX, a precursor,
are appropriate for the 2006 daily standard because exceedences of the
standard were not isolated to one particular season; therefore, the
budgets being found adequate today will be used by transportation
agencies to meet conformity requirements for both the annual and daily
standards.
    The 2009 budgets were developed without an accompanying full
emissions inventory. EPA believes that this approach is approvable and
is consistent with attainment and maintenance of both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards because of our earlier determinations that
both the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey PM2.5
nonattainment areas had attained the standards based on monitored air
quality that included the year 2009.
    The budgets for 2025 reflect the total on-road emissions for 2025,
plus an allocation from the available NOX and
PM2.5 safety margins. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term ``safety
margin'' is the difference between the attainment level (from all
sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the
maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the
transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below
the attainment level. New Jersey chose to add 8% of the available
safety margin to

both the PM2.5 and NOX budgets for 2025 for both
the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey nonattainment areas.
The NOX and PM2.5 budgets and safety margin
allocations were developed in consultation with the transportation
partners and were added to accommodate expected future improvements to
MOVES model inputs and methodologies.
    In the submittal, the State has also established ``sub-area
budgets'' for the two metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) within
the Northern New Jersey nonattainment area: the North Jersey
Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) and the Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). These sub-area budgets allow each
MPO to work independently to demonstrate conformity by meeting its own
PM2.5 and NOX budgets. Each MPO must still
verify, however, that the other MPO currently has a conforming long
range transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP)
prior to making a new plan or TIP conformity determination. The budgets
for both the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey areas are
defined in Tables 1 and 2 below.

Adequacy Process

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the
criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they conform.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle
emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate
from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to
prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget
adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
    We have described our process for determining the adequacy of
submitted SIP budgets in 40 CFR 93.118(f). We have followed this rule
in making our adequacy determination. The motor vehicle emissions
budgets being found adequate today are listed in Tables 1 and 2 and
include direct PM2.5 and its precursor, NOX.
EPA's finding will also be announced on EPA's conformity Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.

EPA Review

    EPA's adequacy review of New Jersey's submitted budgets indicates
that the budgets meet the adequacy criteria set forth by 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4), as follows:
    (i) The submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan was endorsed by the Governor (or his or her designee)
and was subject to a State public hearing: The SIP revision was
submitted to EPA by the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, who is the Governor's designee.
    (ii) Before the control strategy implementation plan or maintenance
plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among federal, State, and local
agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided
to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed: New Jersey
conducted an interagency consultation process involving EPA and USDOT,
the New Jersey Department of Transportation and affected MPOs. All
comments and concerns were addressed prior to the final submittal.
    (iii) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is clearly identified
and precisely quantified: The budgets were clearly identified and
quantified and are presented here in Tables 1 and 2.
    (iv) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered
together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with
applicable requirements for maintenance: Both the 2009 and 2025 budgets
are less than the on-road mobile source inventory for 2007 that was
shown to be consistent with attainment of the standards. In addition,
the 2009 budgets are for a year in which EPA has determined that New
Jersey attained the applicable air quality standards and are therefore
consistent with maintenance of the respective standards.
    (v) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with and
clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in
the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan: The budgets were developed from the on-road mobile
source inventories, including all applicable state and Federal control
measures. Inputs related to inspection and maintenance and fuels are
consistent with New Jersey's Federally-approved control programs.
    (vi) Revisions to previously submitted control strategy
implementation plans or maintenance plans explain and document any
changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts
on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety
margins (see Sec.  93.101 for definition); and reasons for the changes
(including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or
estimates of vehicle miles traveled): The submitted maintenance plan
establishes new 2009 and 2025 budgets to ensure continued maintenance
of the standards; therefore, this is not applicable.

Adequacy Finding

    Today's action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region 2 sent a letter to New Jersey on May 14, 2013,
stating that the 2009 and 2025 motor vehicle emissions budgets in New
Jersey's SIPs for both the Northern New Jersey and Southern New Jersey
PM2.5 nonattainment areas are adequate because they are
consistent with the required maintenance demonstration. In our letter
we noted that there are existing approved and adequate budgets for
2009, but that the 2009 budgets contained in the submitted maintenance
plans will be the most recent budgets in place to satisfy the latest
Clean Air Act requirement and therefore will be the applicable 2009
budgets to be used in future transportation conformity determinations
for analysis years prior to 2025.

   Table 1--2009 PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for New Jersey
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Metropolitan planning organization      Direct PM2.5         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Jersey Transportation Planning               2,736          67,272
 Authority..............................
Delaware Valley Regional Planning                    224           5,835
 Commission (Mercer County only)........
Delaware Valley Regional Planning                    680          18,254
 Commission (Burlington, Camden, and
 Gloucester Counties)...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 2--2025 PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for New Jersey
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Metropolitan planning organization      Direct PM2.5         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Jersey Transportation Planning               1,509          25,437
 Authority..............................
Delaware Valley Regional Planning                    119           2,551
 Commission (Mercer County only)........
Delaware Valley Regional Planning                    363           8,003
 Commission (Burlington, Camden, and
 Gloucester Counties)...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: June 10, 2013.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2013-14908 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 76980]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31312]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9024-4]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 11/30/2015 Through 12/04/2015
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://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150343, Draft, NPS, AZ, Backcountry Management Plan Grand
Canyon National Park, Comment Period Ends: 02/29/2016, Contact: Rachel
Bennett<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150344, Final, USFS, CA, Green-Horse Habitat Restoration and
Maintenance Project, Review Period Ends: 01/25/2016, Contact: Jason
Fallon<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150345, Final, FHWA, NC, US 70 Havelock Bypass, Review Period
Ends: 01/11/2016, Contact: Clarence Coleman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150346, Draft, OSM, TN, North Cumberland Wildlife Management
Area, Tennessee Lands Unsuitable for Mining, Comment Period Ends: 01/
25/2016, Contact: Earl Bandy<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 130.
EIS No. 20150347, Final, FERC, CA, Merced River and Merced Falls
Hydroelectric Projects, Review Period Ends: 01/11/2016, Contact: Matt
Buhyoff<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150348, Final, Caltrans, CA, Centennial Corridor Project,
Review Period Ends: 01/11/2016, Contact: Jennifer Taylor<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20150349, Draft, USFWS, REG, National Wildlife Refuge System
Revision of Regulations Governing Non-Federal Oil and Gas Activities,
Comment Period Ends: 02/09/2016, Contact: Scott Covington<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20150207, Draft, DOE, NH, Northern Pass Transmission Line
Project, Comment Period Ends: 04/04/2016, Contact: Brian Mills 202-586-
8267; Revision to FR Notice Published 10/09/2015; Extending Comment
Period from 12/31/2015 to 04/04/2016; Revision to the FR Notice
published 11/27/2015; EIS No. 20150327 is hereby attached as an
addendum to this Draft EIS.
EIS No. 20150277, Draft, USFS, WA, LeClerc Creek Grazing Allotment
Management Planning, Comment Period Ends: 11/16/2015, Contact: Gayne
Sears<PHONE_NUMBER>; Revision to the FR Notice Published 10/30/2015;
Extending Comment Period from 11/16/2015 to 12/16/2015.
EIS No. 20150302, Draft, NPS, WY, Moose-Wilson Corridor Draft
Comprehensive Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 01/30/2016,
Contact: Chris Church<PHONE_NUMBER>; Revision to the FR Notice Published
11/27/2015; Extending Comment Period from 01/15/2016 to 01/30/2016.
EIS No. 20150327, Draft Supplement, DOE, NH, Northern Pass Transmission
Line Project, Contact: Brian Mills<PHONE_NUMBER>; Revision to FR Notice
Published 11/27/2015; This document was erroneously filed as a
supplement and should be an addendum to the Draft EIS. Therefore, this
addendum will be combined with Draft EIS No. 20150207 to become one
document.

    Dated: December 8, 2015.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-31312 Filed 12-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P