5634 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

which elements of the BAQ guidance

have been incorporated into building

management practices throughout the

United States. The Agency also wishes

to determine what barriers to

implementation, if any, have been

incurred by building owners and

managers. These data are essential for

measuring the effectiveness of EPA’s

efforts to encourage good IAQ

management practices in large office

buildings against the Agency’s

established Government Performance

and Results Act or 1993 (GPRA) goal. By

the year 2005, EPA wishes to

demonstrate a five-percent increase in

the number of large office buildings (i.e.,

over 50,000 square feet) that use good

IAQ management practices.

To determine its success in achieving

this goal, EPA intends to survey owners

and managers of commercial and

Federally-owned office buildings greater

than 50,000 square feet on a variety of

IAQ practices. The Agency will mail a

survey and instructions for completing

it to approximately 4,150 building

owners and managers. Building owners/

managers will be given up to 30 days to

respond. At the end of this period, a

follow-up letter will be sent to building

owners/ managers to remind them of the

survey and to encourage them to

respond. The initial survey will

establish a baseline for the use rate of

IAQ-related practices recommended in

EPA’s guidance. After its completion,

EPA will continue efforts to encourage

large office building owners and

managers to adopt the IAQ practices

outlined in BAQ. EPA intends to

conduct another survey in 2005 to

assess changes in the use of these

practices.

EPA does not expect to receive

confidential information from the

building owners and managers

voluntarily participating in the IAQ

Practices in Large Buildings Survey.

However, if a respondent does consider

the information submitted to be of a

proprietary nature, EPA will assure its

confidentiality based on the provisions

of 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B,

‘‘Confidentiality of Business

Information.’’

A Federal agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15.

The EPA would like to solicit

comments to:

(i) evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility.

(ii) evaluate the accuracy of the

Agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used.

(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected.

(iv) minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: EPA expects to

mail surveys to approximately 4,150

building owners and managers. EPA

expects approximately 43 percent of

those surveyed to respond to this

information collection request. Over

three years, EPA estimates that the

burden to building owners and

managers who respond to the survey

will be approximately 3,233 hours.

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for the purposes of

collecting, validating, and verifying

information, processing and

maintaining information, and disclosing

and providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

This survey effort is expected to cost

the respondents approximately $67,890.

Respondents will incur no capital or

start-up costs and the only operation

and maintenance component of the

survey will be the cost to photocopy the

survey once completed (if desired).

Burden and cost estimates for the future

administration of the IAQ Practices in

Large Buildings Survey will be provided

at the time this ICR is renewed, but they

are expected to be similar to those

provided in this Federal Register notice.

Dated: January 21, 2000.

Mary T. Smith,

Director, Indoor Environments Division.

[FR Doc. 00–2481 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6250–8]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared January 17, 2000 Through

January 21, 2000 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) 564–7167. An

explanation of the ratings assigned to

draft environmental impact

statements(EISs) was published in FR

dated April 09, 1999 (63 FR 17856).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–COE–E32079–SC Rating

EO2, Daniel Island Marine Cargo

Terminal Development, Permits and

Approvals, South Caroline State

PortsAuthority, (SCSPA), Charleston,

Berkeley County, SC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections due to

significant indirect and induced impacts

related to wetlands, environmental

justice, waste treatment, air quality,

dredge material disposal and discharge

permit issues. EPA requested additional

information and mitigation measures.

ERP No. D–COE–E39049–FL Rating

EC2, Southwest Florida Improvement to

the RegulatoryProcess for Rapid Growth

and Development,Alternatives

Development Group (ADG), Lee and

Collier Counties, FL.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about finalizing

this regulatory process given its scope/

complexity.Additional information

about future development trends will

need to be evaluated in the context of

an improved review process to avoid

unacceptable losses to the natural

environment.

ERP No. D–FAA–G51015–TX Rating

EC2, George Bush Intercontinental

Airport Houston,Construction and

Operation, Runway 8L–26R and

Associated Near Term Master Plan

Project,City of Houston, Harris County,

TX.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns due to potential

noise and air related impacts. The FEIS

should clarify and demonstrate air

conformity requirements including

implication to the State Implementation

Plan and mitigation measures should be

included in the ROD.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5635

ERP No. D–FHW–E40781–FL Rating

EC2, FL–423 (John Young Parking),

Improvements from FL–50 to Fl–434,

City of Orlando, Orange County,FL.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concern regarding

relocation issues and potential noise

impacts. EPA requested additional

consideration of residential relocations

and noise mitigation. EPA also

suggested that the project design

provide for future light rail and bike

lanes.

ERP No. D–SFW–K99029–CA Rating

EC2, San Joaquin County Multi-Species

HabitatConservation and Open Space

Plan, Issuance of Incidental Take

Permit, San Joaquin County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about

compliance with EPA’s CWA Section

404(b)(1) guidelines. TheFinal EIS

should clearly reflect the requirements

to avoid and minimize, to the fullest

extent practicable, the discharge of

dredged or fill material into waters of

the United States.

ERP No. D–USN–E11047–00 Rating

EC1, USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG

81), Conducting a Shock Trial, Offshore

of Naval Stations,Mayport, FL; Norfolk,

VA and/or Pascagoula, MS.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about the

proposed ship shock test, and

recommended post-monitoring results

be made available to assess mitigation

measures.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–COE–G39031–ARGrand

Prairie Area Demonstration

Project,Implementation, Water

Conservation, GroundwaterManagement

and Irrigation Water Supply,Prairie,

Arkansas, Monroe and Lonoke Counties,

AR.

Summary: EPA continued to express

concerns about the project and urged

the Corps to conduct a comprehensive,

or cumulative impact study of the White

River basin in order to gain a better

understanding of the interaction of

implemented and planned projects.

ERP No. F–FAA–C51019–NY

LaGuardia Airport East End Roadway

Improvements Project, Four New Ramps

at the 102nd Street Bridge Construction,

Airport Layout Plan Approval and

Funding, Queens County, NY.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–USN–K11104–CA Marine

Corp Air Station (MCAS) Tustin

Disposal and Reuse Plan, Cities of

Tustin and Irvine, Orange County, CA.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. FS–UAF–C11011–NY Griffiss

Air Force Base (AFB) Disposal and

Reuse, Implementation, Oneida County,

NY.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00–2594 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6250–7]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 OR www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements Filed January 24, 2000

Through January 28, 2000 Pursuant to

40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 000020, Final EIS, COE, FL,

Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule

Study, To Maintain or Improve Existing

Water Storage, St. Lucie and

Caloosahatchee River Estuaries, FL ,

Due: March 6, 2000, Contact: Elmar

Kurzbach (904) 232–2325.

EIS No. 000021, Final EIS, USN, NV,

Fallon Naval Air Station (NAS),

Proposal for the Fallon Range Complex

Requirements, Federal and Private

Lands, Churchill, Eureka, Lander,

Mineral, Nye and Washoe Counties, NV,

Due: March 6, 2000, Contact: Terri

Knutson (775) 885–6156.

EIS No. 000022, Final EIS, DOE, NM,

The Conveyance and Transfer of Certain

Land Tracts Administered by the US

DOE and Located at Los Alamos

National Laboratory, Los Alamos and

Santa Fe Counties, NM, Due: March 6,

2000, Contact: Elizabeth Withers (505)

667–8690.

EIS No. 000023, Draft EIS, SFW, CA,

San Diequito Wetland Restoration

Project, Implementation,

Comprehensive Restoration Plan, COE

Section 404 Permit, Cities of Del Mar

and San Diego, San Diego County, CA,

Due: March 20, 2000, Contact: Jack

Fancher (760) 431–9440.

EIS No. 000024, Draft EIS, FHW, TX,

TX–130 Construction, I–35 of

Georgetown to I–10 near Seguin,

Funding, COE Section 404 Permit,

Williamson, Travis, Caldwell,

Guadalupe Counties, TX, Due: March

20, 2000, Contact: Walter Waidelich

(512) 916–5988.

EIS No. 000025, Final EIS, FHW, AR,

MS, AR, Great River Bridge,

Construction, US 65 in Arkansas to MS–

8 in Mississippi, Funding, COE Section

404 Permit and US Coast Guard Bridge

Permit, Desha and Arkansas Counties,

AR and Bolivar County, MS, Due: March

6, 2000, Contact: Elizabeth A. Romero

(504) 324–5625.

EIS No. 000026, Final EIS, UAF, LA,

TX, NM, Realistic Bomber Training

Initiative, Improve the B–52 and B–1

Aircrews Mission Training and

Maximize Combat Training Time,

Barksdale Air Force Base, LA, NM and

TX, Due: March 6, 2000, Contact:

Brenda Cook (757) 764–9339.

EIS No. 000027, Final EIS, FRC, FL,

MS, Florida Gas Transmission Phase IV

Expansion Project (Docket No. CP99–

94–000), To Deliver Natural Gas to

Electric Generator, FL and MS, Due:

March 6, 2000, Contact: Paul McKee

(202) 208–1088.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance

Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00–2595 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6533–6]

Environmental Laboratory Advisory

Board; Meeting Dates and Agenda

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, Public Law

92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App 2)

notification is hereby given of an open

meeting of the Environmental

Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB).

DATES: The meeting will be held on

February 15, 2000, from 1:30 p.m. to

4:00 p.m. (EST).

ADDRESSES: While the meeting will be

conducted by teleconference, the public

is invited to participate by joining David

Friedman in EPA Conference Room 2 on

the fourth floor of the Ronald Reagan

Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Among

the items the Board will discuss are

updates from its subcommittees,

laboratory performance testing,

shipment of environmental samples,

and any public comments that the Board

has received since their December 1999

meeting.