Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

3 / Friday, January 5, 2007 / Notices 545

glass melting furnace stack. The revised permit to be published in the Federal including additional information in the
Permit also included other changes Register. This notice constitutes notice EIS regarding BMPs, a vegetation
related to the changes in the emission of the final agency action denying management plan, and water quality
limitations. review of the revised Permit and, monitoring. Rating LO.
Subsequent to the issuance of the consequently, notice of the EPA Region
revised Permit, the EAB received six 9’s issuance of the Permit (PSD Permit Final EISs
petitions requesting review of the No. Permit No. NSR 4–4–4, SAC 03–01)
revised Permit. The EAB denied review EIS No. 20060468, ERP No. F–NPS–
to Knauf. If available, judicial review of
of all six petitions. K61159–CA, Sequoia and Kings
these determinations under section
307(b)(1) of the CAA may be sought Canyon National Parks, General
III. What Did the EAB Decide? Management Plan, Middle and South
only by the filing of a petition for review
Four of the petitions raised public in the United States Court of Appeals Forks of the Kings River and North
health concerns and general concerns for the Ninth Circuit, within 60 days Forks of the Kern River, General
about the Knauf facility which were from the date on which this notice is Management Plan, Tulare and Fresno
already addressed in EPA Region 9’s published in the Federal Register. Counties, CA.
response to comments for the revised Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, this
Permit. The EAB denied review of these Summary: EPA does not object to this
determination shall not be subject to project.
petitions because they failed to later judicial review in any civil or
demonstrate why EPA Region 9’s criminal proceedings for enforcement. EIS No. 20060473, ERP No. F–FHW–
response was clearly erroneous or H40189–MO, Interstate 29/35 Paseo
Dated: December 20, 2006.
otherwise warranted review. For one of Bridge Corridor, Reconstruct and
these petitions, which asserted that the Kerry J. Drake,
Acting Director, Air Division, Region 9.
Widen I–29/35, Missouri River, North
original permit issued in 2000 violated Kansas City and Kansas City, Clay and
the CAA by allowing the facility to be [FR Doc. E6–22561 Filed 1–4–07; 8:45 am]
Jackson Counties, MO.
built, the EAB ruled that the assertion BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
did not relate to any condition of the Summary: EPA does not object to the
revised Permit issued by EPA Region 9 proposed project. EPA does
and was, therefore, beyond the scope of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION recommended that additional
the EAB proceeding. AGENCY information be obtained about
One petition related to two [ER–FR1–6682–8] populations within the project area
documents filed with the EAB titled potentially sensitive to mobile source
‘‘Notice of Appeal’’ and ‘‘Request for Environmental Impact Statements and air toxics.
Time Extension.’’ The Notice of Appeal Regulations; Availability of EPA
asked for permission to file an appeal Comments EIS No. 20060483, ERP No. F–UAF–
with the EAB, but did not raise any K11021–GU, Andersen Air Force Base
specific objections to the revised Permit, Availability of EPA comments (AFB), Establish and Operate an
and the Extension Request stated only prepared pursuant to the Environmental Intelligence, Surveillance,
that the petitioners were waiting to Review Process (ERP), under section Reconnaissance, and Strike (ISR/
receive certain information from EPA 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section Strike) Capability, Guam.
Region 9. The EAB denied review 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act as amended. Requests for Summary: EPA continues to have
because the petitioners did not
articulate any specific objections to the copies of EPA comments can be directed concerns about cumulative
revised Permit and did not establish to the Office of Federal Activities at environmental impacts and direct
good cause for extending the time to file 202–564–7167. An explanation of the impacts to endangered species.
an appeal. ratings assigned to draft environmental
impact statements (EISs) was published EIS No. 20060484, ERP No. F–NAS–
One petition objected to the location A12042–00, Mars Science Laboratory
of the Knauf facility and asked for in FR dated April 7, 2006 (71 FR 17845).
Mission (MSL), To Conduct
reconsideration of the permitting Draft EISs Comprehensive Science on the
decision. The EAB denied review since Surface of Mars and Demonstrate
EIS No. 20060373, ERP No. D–BLM–
the petitioner did not file the petition in
K65319–CA, Sierra Resource Technological Advancements in the
a timely manner and did not participate
Management Plan, Provide Direction Exploration of Mars, Using a
in the permitting process during the
for Managing Public Lands, Several Radioisotope Power Source in 2009
public comment period for the draft
Counties, CA. from Cape Canaveral Air Force
revised Permit.
Readers interested in more detail on Summary: EPA expressed Station, FL.
the appeal issues raised by the environmental concern about impacts to
Summary: EPA does not object to the
petitioners and the reasons for the water quality and aquatic habitat, and to
public health from exposure to naturally proposed action.
EAB’s denial of review may download
EAB’s Order Denying Review from the occurring asbestos. Rating EC2. Dated: December 29, 2006.
EAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ EIS No. 20060418, ERP No. D–FHW– Clifford Rader,
eab. L40231–WA, East Lake Sammamish Environmental Protection Specialist, Office
Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), for Master Plan Trail, Design and of Federal Activities.
purposes of judicial review, final agency Construct an Alternative Non- [FR Doc. E6–22618 Filed 1–4–07; 8:45 am]
action occurs when a final PSD permit Motorized Transportation and Multi-
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


is issued and agency review procedures Use Recreational Trail, Funding and
are exhausted. This notice is being U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit,
published pursuant to 40 CFR King County, WA.
124.19(f)(2), which requires notice of Summary: EPA does not object to the
any final agency action regarding a PSD proposed project. EPA does recommend

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:29 Jan 04, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM 05JAN1