63074 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Notices

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, (6609J),

Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John Guevin by phone at (202) 564–

9055 or by e-mail at

guevin.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Affected entities: Entities potentially

affected by this action are all public and

private schools operating in the United

States during the school year

immediately preceding the year in

which the survey is conducted.

Title: IAQ Practices in Schools Survey

(EPA ICR No. 1885.01). This is a new

collection.

Abstract: As part of its authorization

under Title IV of SARA, 1986, the

Indoor Environments Division (IED) of

EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor

Air has been working to promote more

effective approaches for preventing,

identifying, and solving indoor air

quality (IAQ) problems in schools and

has developed low-cost guidance

entitled IAQ Tools for Schools for that

purpose.

The IAQ Practices in Schools Survey

will allow EPA to gain information

regarding the number of schools that

have implemented sound IAQmanagement practices, such as those

activities recommended in its guidance.

These data are essential for measuring

the effectiveness of EPA’s outreach

efforts against the Agency’s established

GPRA goal. EPA is working towards

achieving the implementation of sound

IAQ practices in 15 percent, or 16,650,

of the nation’s public and private

schools by 2005. The IAQ Practices in

Schools Survey is voluntary.

An 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; and

(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 estimates the

annual public reporting and record

keeping burden for this collection of

information to be 1.3 hours per mail

response and 0.8 hours per telephone

response. 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

approximately $27.60 per mail response

and $16.95 per telephone response.

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).

Dated: October 6, 2000.

Mary T. Smith,

Director, Indoor Environments Division.

[FR Doc. 00–27033 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6885–3]

Adequacy Status of Submitted State

Implementation Plans (SIP) for

Transportation Conformity Purposes:

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and

Beaumont-Port Arthur (BPA)

Attainment Demonstration SIPs for

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy

determination.

SUMMARY: In this notice, the EPA is

announcing that the motor vehicle

emissions budgets contained in the

submitted DFW and BPA Attainment

Demonstration State Implementation

Plans (SIP) for ozone are adequate for

transportation conformity purposes. As

a result of this determination, the

budgets from the submitted attainment

SIPs must be used for transportation

conformity determinations in the DFW

and BPA areas. The EPA received no

public comments.

DATES: These budgets are effective

November 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

J. Behnam, P.E., The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202; telephone (214)

665–7247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Transportation conformity is required

by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.

The EPA’s conformity rule, 40 CFR part

93, requires that transportation plans,

programs, and projects conform to SIPs

and establishes the criteria and

procedures for determining whether or

not they do. 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 EPA determines

whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission

budgets are adequate for conformity

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR

93.118(e)(4). An adequacy review is

separate from EPA’s completeness

review, and it 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.

On March 2, 1999, the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) v.

Environmental Protection Agency, 167

F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 1999), and ruled that

budgets contained in submitted SIPs

cannot be used for conformity

determinations unless EPA has

affirmatively found the conformity

budget adequate. We have described our

process for determining the adequacy of

submitted SIP budgets in the policy

guidance dated May 14, 1999, and titled

Conformity Guidance on

Implementation of March 2, 1999

Conformity Court Decision. You may

obtain a copy of this guidance from

EPA’s conformity web site: http://

www.epa.gov/oms/traq (once there,

click on ‘‘conformity’’ and then scroll

down) or by contacting us at the address

above.

By this notice, we are simply

announcing the DFW and BPA

adequacy determinations that we have

already made. The Governor of Texas

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 204 / Friday, October 20, 2000 / Notices 63075

submitted the DFW Attainment

Demonstration SIP on April 25, 2000.

The Attainment SIP contained the 2007

motor vehicle emissions budgets for

VOC (107.60 tons/day) and NOX (164.30

tons/day) for the DFW ozone

nonattainment area. On May 9, 2000,

the availability of those budgets was

posted on EPA’s web site for the

purpose of soliciting public comments.

The public comment period closed on

June 8, 2000, and the EPA did not

receive any comments. Also, the

Governor submitted additional

information on the BPA Attainment

Demonstration SIP on April 25, 2000, to

supplement the November 15, 1999,

initial submission. The Attainment SIP

contained the 2007 motor vehicle

emissions budgets for VOC (17.22 tons/

day) and NOX (29.94 tons/day) for the

BPA ozone nonattainment area. On

August 1, 2000, the availability of those

budgets was posted on EPA’s web site

for the purpose of soliciting public

comments. The public comment period

closed on August 31, 2000, and the EPA

did not receive any comments. After the

public comment process, we sent a

letter, dated September 6, 2000, to the

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission stating that these budgets

are adequate and they must be used for

transportation conformity

determinations.

Therefore, the budgets contained in

the submitted DFW and BPA

Attainment SIPs as cited in this notice

must be used for transportation

conformity by the Metropolitan

Planning Organizations in the DFW and

BPA areas.

Dated: September 29, 2000.

Myron M. Knudson,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 00–27035 Filed 10–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6611–9]

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) 260–5076.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in FR

dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–F65027–MN Rating

LO, Little East Creek Fuel Reduction

Project, Plan to Grant Access Across

Federal Land to Non-Federal

Landowners, Implementation, LaCroix

Ranger District, Superior National

Forest, Saint Louis County, MN.

Summary: EPA has no objections to

the project.

ERP No. D–AFS–K65228–CA Rating

EC2, Airport Forest Health Project,

Forest Health Improvements through

Reduction of Fuel Loads and Fire

Hazards and Wildlife Habitat

Improvements Implementation, Pacific

Ranger District, El Dorado National

Forest, El Dorado and Placer Counties,

CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding purpose and need, the range

of alternatives analyzed, and lack of

appropriate mitigation for 2.2 miles of

new road construction. EPA also

recommended consideration of land

tenure adjustments to block ownership,

and disclosure of potential conflicts

with standards and guidelines being

developed as part of the Sierra Nevada

Forest Plan Amendment process.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65363–OR Rating

EC2, Anthony Lakes Mountain Resort

Master Development Plan, Upgrading

and Additional Development, Approval,

Baker Ranger District, WallowaWhitman National Forest, Grant, Union

and Baker Counties, OR.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

with the potential impacts associated

from the addition of snowmobile rentals

to the Master Development Plan (MDP).

The final EIS should disclose additional

information regarding how the number

of allowable rentals will be defined in

both the MDP and the Special Use

Permit.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65364–ID Rating

EC2, South Fourth of July Ecosystem

Restoration Project, Implementation,

Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District, SalmonChallis National Forest, Lemhi County,

ID.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

about water quality, air quality and

cumulative effects and requested

additional information that would

address our concerns.

ERP No. D–BOP–K80042–CA Rating

EC2, Lompoc United States Penitentiary

(UPS) Construction and Operation of a

New High-Security Facility and

Ancillary Structures on One of Three

Sites located in the City of Lopmoc,

Funding, Santa Barbara County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding lack of information specific to

the facility location and the prison

industry component of the proposed

project. EPA also recommended that all

wetlands be avoided on the preferred

project site.

ERP No. D–IBR–K39062–00 Rating

EC2, Colorado River Interim Surplus

Criteria, To Determine Water Surplus

for use within the States of Arizona,

California and Nevada (from 2001

through 2015), Colorado River Basin,

AZ, CA and NV.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

with the minimal evaluation of indirect

impacts from use and storage of surplus

water and of mitigation measures for

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

The surplus determination should also

include more specific requirements for

efficient and beneficial use of the

declared surplus.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–J65309–UT Trout

Slope East Timber Project, Timber

Harvest and Associated Activities,

Implementation, Vernal Ranger District,

Ashley National Forest, Uintah County,

UT.

Summary: EPA’s comments and

concerns with the draft EIS were

adequately addressed, therefore, EPA

has no objections with the proposed

action.

ERP No. F–AFS–L65348–ID Idaho

Panhandle National Forests, Small

Sales, Harvesting Dead and Damaged

Timber, Coeur d’Alene River Range

District, Kootenai and Shoshone

Counties, ID.

Summary: EPA’s previous concerns

were addressed, therefore, EPA has no

objection to the action as proposed.

ERP No. F–COE–E39049–FL

Improving the Regulatory Process in

Southwest Florida for the Review of

Applications for the Fill of Wetlands

(US Army COE Section 404 Permit), Lee

and Collier Counties, FL.

Summary: EPA stated with some

substantive changes, the proposed

permit review process (assessing the

direct, indirect/induced, and

cumulative impact(s) on wetland and

related systems) can provide effective

wetland regulation in southwest

Florida.

ERP No. F–FTA–C53004–NY MidHarlem Line Third Track Project,

Construct a New 2.5 mile Third Track

between Fleetwood and Crestwood

Stations, Funding, Westchester County,

NY.

Summary: EPA continues to lack

objections to the proposed action since

no significant new issues were raised

since the draft EIS.

ERP No. F–USN–C11016–NY

Brooklyn Naval Station Disposal and