Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Notices 21137

conform with the SIPs to attain and

maintain the NAAQS. The EPA’s

implementing regulations require

Federal entities to make a conformity

determination for all actions which will

impact areas designated as

nonattainment or maintenance for the

NAAQS and which will result in total

direct and indirect emissions in excess

of de minimis levels. The Federal

entities must collect information on the

SIP requirements and the pollution

sources to make the conformity

determination. Depending on the type of

action, the Federal entities either collect

the information themselves, hire

consultants to collect the information or

require applicants/sponsors of the

Federal action to provide the

information.

The type and quantity of information

required will depend on the

circumstances surrounding the action.

First, the entity must make an

applicability determination. If the net

total direct and indirect emissions do

not exceed de minimis levels

established in the regulations or if the

action meets certain criteria for an

exemption, a conformity determination

is not required. Actions requiring

conformity determinations vary from

straightforward, requiring minimal

information, to complex, requiring

significant amounts of information. The

Federal entity must determine the type

and quantity of information on a caseby-case basis. State and local air

pollution control agencies are usually

requested to provide information to the

Federal entities making a conformity

determination and are provided

opportunities to comment on the

proposed determinations. The public is

also provided an opportunity to

comment on the proposed

determinations.

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: The estimated

total annual projected burden and cost

for respondents of Federal agencies are

175,000 hours and $8,027,000. The

estimated total annual projected burden

and cost for respondents providing

information to the Federal agencies are

5,040 hours and $223,000. The

estimated total annual projected burden

and cost for the State and local agencies

are 13,600 hours and $377,279. The

estimated total annual projected burden

and cost for EPA is 26,200 hours and

$720,934. The total annual burden is

estimated to be 219,840 hours and

$9,348,213. For the 3 years covered by

this ICR, the total burden is estimated to

be 659,520 hours and $28,044,639.

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.

Dated: April 2, 2001.

Henry C. Thomas, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–10516 Filed 4–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6617–5]

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 April 16, 2001

Through April 20, 2001 Pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 010127, DRAFT EIS, AFS, ID,

Caribou National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan,

Implementation Revised Forest Plan,

Bannock, Bear Lake. Bingham,

Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida

and Power Counties, Cache and Rich

Counties, UT, Lincoln County, WY,

Comment Period Ends: August 31,

2001, Contact: Ric Rine (208) 557–

5766.

EIS No. 010128, DRAFT EIS, FHW, MT,

Montana State Primary Route 78 (P–

78), Reconstruction, Widening and

Realignment, from the junction with

State Secondary Route 419 (S–419)

which is just South of Abarokee, to

the Southern end of the Yellowstone

River Bridge which is just south of

Columbus, MT, Comment Period

Ends: June 11, 2001, Contact: Dale W.

Paulson (406) 449–5302.

EIS No. 010129, DRAFT EIS, FHW, WI,

County Highway J/Wis 164 (I–94 to

County E) Corridor Study,

Improvements, City of Pewaukee,

Villages of Pewaukee and Sussex

Towns of Lisbon, Richfield and Polk,

Waukesha and Washington Counties,

WI, Comment Period Ends: June 18,

2001, Contact: Richard Madrzak (608)

829–7510.

EIS No. 010130, FINAL EIS, COE, CA,

Guadalupe River Flood Control and

Adjacent Streams Investigation,

Proposed Modifications to the

Guadalupe River Project, Downtown

San Jose, Santa Clara County, CA,

Wait Period Ends: May 29, 2001,

Contact: Nina Bicknese (916) 557–

7948.

EIS No. 010131, DRAFT EIS, UAF, VA,

Initial F–22 Operational Wing

Beddown Replacing the Existing F–

15C at Langley (AFB) or one of the

Four Alternative Locations, VA,

Comment Period Ends: June 11, 2001,

Contact: Brenda Cook (757) 764–5007.

EIS No. 010132, FINAL EIS, IBR, CA,

Coachella Canal Lining Water Project,

Revised and Updated Information,

Approval of the Transfers and

Exchanges of Conserved Coachella

Canal Water, Construction, Operation

and Funding, Riverside and Imperial

Counties, CA, Wait Period Ends: May

29, 2001, Contact: Don Mitchell (760)

398–2651.

EIS No. 010133, DRAFT EIS, AFS, OR,

Deep Vegetation Management Project,

Implementation, Ochoco National

Forest, Paulina Ranger District, Crook

and Wheeler Counties, OR, Comment

Period Ends: June 11, 2001, Contact:

Eugene Skrine (541) 447–6900.

EIS No. 010134, FINAL EIS, COE, CA,

Bolsa Chica Project, Construction/

Road Construction, Restoration and

Flood Control Improvement, Section

10/404 Permits and Land Use Plan,

City of Huntington Beach, Orange

County, CA, Wait Period Ends: May

29, 2001, Contact: Jack Fancher (760)

431–9440.

21138 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2001 / Notices

EIS No. 010135, DRAFT SUPPLEMENT,

FHW, VA, Outer Connector Study—

Northwest Quadrant Transportation

Improvement, from I–95, US 17 and

VA–3, Funding, COE Section 10 and

404 Permits, Stafford and

Spotsylvania Counties, WA, Comment

Period Ends: July 02, 2001, Contact:

Roberto Foresca-Martinez (804) 775–

3320.

Dated: April 24, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–10554 Filed 4–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6617–6]

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) 564–7167. 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–K65230–CA Rating

EC2, Fuels Reduction for Community

Protection Phase 1 Project on the Six

Rivers National Forest, Proposes to

Reduce Fuels High Severity Burned

Stands, Lower Trinity Ranger District,

Humboldt and Trinity Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns related to

purpose and project scope, and the need

for additional information on the

transportation system in the area. EPA

also suggested that the final EIS include

additional mitigation measures to

address sedimentation and temperature

issues in affected streams.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65368–ID Rating

EC2, Curfew National Grassland Land

and Resource Management Plan,

Implementation, Caribou-Targhee

National Forest, Oneida County, ID.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the range

of alternatives, and the need for

additional information on impacts to air

and water quality, and cumulative

impacts. EPA suggests that the final EIS

include a modified alternative within

the range of alternatives that considers

a grazing limit of 1000 acres or less. In

addition, the FEIS should explain the

significance of the changes in sagebrush

canopy cover that would occur under

each alternative.

ERP No. D–BLM–J02011–00 Rating

EO2, Programmatic EIS—Southern Ute

Indian Reservation Oil and Gas

Development, Implementation, San Juan

Basin, LaPlata, Archuleta, Montezuma

Counties, CO and Rio Arriba and San

Juan Counties, NM.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections with potential

adverse impacts from temporary

drilling, construction and well service

and maintenance activities on 171 acres

of wetlands and to federally threatened

and endangered species (TES) including

protection to active bald eagle nesting

areas. The final EIS should include

additional information to calculate

cumulative impacts to wetlands and

TES.

ERP No. D–FAA–E40785–FL Rating

EC2, Fort Lauderdale—Hollywood

International Airport, Proposed

Expansion of Runway 9R–2FL and other

Associated Improvements, Funding,

Broward County, FL.

Summary: EPA is concerned about the

insufficiency of the NEPA air quality

analysis, potential noise impacts of the

Proposed Project in EJ and non-EJ

residential communities near the

airport, the predicted loss of tidal

mangrove wetlands, the limiting of the

alternatives analysis, as well as the

potential safety concerns of the

proposed runway bridge.

ERP No. D–MMS–L03010–AK Rating

EO2, Liberty Development and

Production Plan, Beaufort Sea Oil and

Gas Development, Implementation, To

Transport and Sell Oil to the U.S. and

World Markets, Right-of-Way

Application, Offshore Beaufort Sea

Marine Environment and Onshore North

Slope of Alaska Coastal Plan, AK.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections due to the

lack of analysis of the issues and

concerns of the Inupiat Eskimos as

required by Executive Order (EO) 12898,

the potentially significant effects from

leaks and spills associated with the use

of undersea pipelines in the Beaufort

Sea, the technological/logistical

difficulties in responding to oil spills in

the Beaufort, and the potential use of

project components for which there are

less environmentally damaging options.

EPA recommended that additional

information and analysis related to

these objections be included in the EIS.

ERP No. D–NPS–E64018–GA Rating

LO, Cumberland Island National

Seashore General Management Plan,

Wilderness Management Plan,

Commercial Services Plan,

Interpretation Plan, Resource Cultural

and Natural Management Plan,

Implementation, St. Marys County, GA.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

concerns.

Final EISs

ERP No. FA–NOA–E64016–FL,

Florida Keys National Sanctuary

Comprehensive Management Plan, New

Information Concerning the

Establishment of the Tortugas Marine

Reserves in Seven Fishery Management

Plan Amendments in the Gulf of

Mexico.

Summary: EPA had no objections to

the proposed plan.

Dated: April 24, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–10555 Filed 4–26–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6971–5]

Science Advisory Board; Notification

of Public Advisory Committee Meeting

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act, Public Law

92–463, notice is hereby given that the

Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee (CASAC or the

‘‘Committee’’), a chartered Federal

advisory committee, will meet in a

public teleconference on Monday, May

14, 2001 from 1 to 2 pm Eastern Time.

The meeting will be hosted out of

Conference Room 6428, US EPA, Ariel

Rios Federal Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20004. The meeting is

open to the public, however, due to

limited space, seating will be on a

registration-only basis. Consequently,

the public is encouraged to connect via

phone to the teleconference. For further

information concerning the meeting or

how to obtain the phone number, please

contact the individual listed below.

Background

The CASAC Technical Subcommittee

for Fine Particle Monitoring (the

‘‘Subcommittee’’) was established in

1996 to provide advice and comment to

EPA (through CASAC) on appropriate

methods and network strategies for

monitoring fine particles in the context

of implementing the revised national

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)