22538 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices

and lower but about equal at Mayport

and Pascagoula.

Considering all components of the

physical, biological, and socioeconomic

environment, potential impacts would

be less at Mayport or Pascagoula than at

Norfolk.

Mitigation

A detailed Marine Mammal and Sea

Turtle Protection/Mitigation Plan is

presented in the FEIS. The plan

includes the same type of mitigation

and monitoring efforts that were used

successfully during the shock trial of

USS JOHN PAUL JONES in 1994 off the

coast the southern California where

marine mammal population densities

are significantly greater than at the

Mayport, Norfolk, or Pascagoula test

areas. No deaths or injuries of marine

mammals were detected during the USS

JOHN PAUL JONES shock trial. The

mitigation plan for the shock trial would

avoid impacts and minimize risk to

marine mammals and sea turtles in

three ways:

Site selection. Initial, general site

selection would be based on operational

requirements and surveys. Within the

test area selected for the shock trial,

aerial surveys would be conducted and

satellite imagery would be analyzed to

select a small test site having low

densities of marine mammals and

turtles.

Pre-detonation monitoring. Prior to

each detonation, aerial and shipboard

observers would search for marine

mammals and turtles at the selected test

site. Passive acoustic surveys would

also be used to detect marine mammal

calls. If any marine mammal or sea

turtle were detected within the Safety

Range (a 2 nm radius around the

detonation point), testing would be

postponed. Testing would also be

postponed if large.

Sargassum rafts, debris lines, or

jellyfish concentrations (indicators that

turtles may be present) were detected in

the Safety Range, or if flocks of seabirds

or large fish schools were detected

within 1 nm of the detonation point.

Postponement would also occur in

certain circumstances when a marine

mammal or turtle is detected in a Buffer

Zone extending from 2 to 3 nm from the

detonation point. Detonation would not

occur until monitoring indicated that

the Safety Range is clear of detectable

marine mammals, sea turtles, large

Sargassum rafts and debris lines, and

large concentrations of jellyfish.

Post-detonation monitoring. After the

explosion, aerial and shipboard

observers would survey the test site. A

Marine Animal Recovery Team led by a

marine mammal veterinarian would

document and attempt to recover any

dead animals and monitor any animals

that appear to be injured. If the survey

showed that marine mammals or turtles

were killed or injured or if any marine

mammals or turtles are detected in the

Safety Range immediately following a

detonation, testing would be halted

until procedures for subsequent

detonations could be reviewed and

changed as necessary. Communications

with stranding network personnel

would be maintained throughout the

shock trial period.

Coordination and Consultation with the

NMFS

Because the NMFS has jurisdiction by

law with respect to issues related to

endangered species and marine

mammals, the NMFS acted as a

cooperating agency on the EIS. In

addition to a review and comment role,

the NMFS had two regulatory roles

relative to the proposed shock trail.

First, the NMF is responsible for

administering the Endangered Species

Act as it applies to listed sea turtles and

marine mammals. The DEIS served as

the Biological Assessment which the

Navy submitted to the NMFS,

requesting formal consultation under

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA), (16 USC 1531 et seq.). The NMFS

subsequently issued a Biological

Opinion, dated October 10, 2000, which

completed the consultation process

under ESA. The NMFS also has a

regulatory role under the Marine

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16

USC 1361 et seq.) When the DEIS was

published, the Navy submitted a

separate application to the NMFS for an

‘‘incidental take authorization’’ under

section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. The

NMFS published a Proposed Rule in the

Federal Register on December 12, 2000

(65 FR 77546). The Proposed Rule

specified mitigation, monitoring, and

reporting requirements for the shock

trial. A Final Rule must be issued by

NMFS before the shock trial can

proceed.

Comments Received on the FEIS

After the FEIS was distributed to the

public for a 30-day review period

ending on March 26, 2001, the Navy

received one comment letter.

Environmental Protection Agency

commented that with properly executed

mitigation as discussed in the EIS, that

Mayport represents the best compromise

among the three testing locations.

Conclusion

Shock testing the WINSTON S.

CHURCHILL in an area offshore of

Mayport, Florida is the alternative that

best meets the project purpose and

need, satisfies operational criteria, and

minimizes environmental impacts.

Potentially significant direct impacts

resulting from the test include mortality,

injury, and acoustic harassment of

marine mammals and sea turtles. While

numbers have been calculated to define

the potential lethal, injurious, and

harassment take that might occur, it is

expected that the mitigation and

monitoring program will minimize the

risk to marine mammals and sea turtles.

The ‘‘No Action’’ alternative would

avoid all environmental impacts of a

shock trial and is the environmentally

preferred alternative. It does not,

however, support the development of

the best assessment of the survivability

characteristics of the ship.

Dated: April 27, 2001.

Paul A. Schneider,

Assistant Secretary of the Navy, (Research,

Development and Acquisition) (Acting).

[FR Doc. 01–11270 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory

Information Management Group, Office

of the Chief Information Officer, invites

comments on the proposed information

collection requests as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on or before July 3,

2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires

that the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) provide interested

Federal agencies and the public an early

opportunity to comment on information

collection requests. OMB may amend or

waive the requirement for public

consultation to the extent that public

participation in the approval process

would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations. The Leader,

Regulatory Information Management

Group, Office of the Chief Information

Officer, publishes that notice containing

proposed information collection

requests prior to submission of these

requests to OMB. Each proposed

information collection, grouped by

office, contains the following: (1) Type

of review requested, e.g. new, revision,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2001 / Notices 22539

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2)

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)

Description of the need for, and

proposed use of, the information; (5)

Respondents and frequency of

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites

public comment.

The Department of Education is

especially interested in public comment

addressing the following issues: (1) Is

this collection necessary to the proper

functions of the Department; (2) will

this information be processed and used

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate

of burden accurate; (4) how might the

Department enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (5) how might the

Department minimize the burden of this

collection on the respondents, including

through the use of information

technology.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

John Tressler,

Leader, Regulatory Information Management,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Field Test Activities and the

2003–2004 Full-Scale Schools and

Staffing Survey (SASS): Local

Educational Agency (LEA), Principal,

School, Teacher, Library.

Frequency: 2 series of field tests and

the full-scale SASS.

Affected Public: Businesses or other

for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions;

State, Local, or Tribal Gov’t, SEAs or

LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour

Burden:

Responses: 2,764.

Burden Hours: 2,232.

Abstract: The National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) will use the

field test to assess data collection

procedures that are planned for the next

full-scale SASS in 2003–2004.

Policymakers, researchers and

practitioners at the national, state and

local levels use SASS data which are

representative at the national and state

levels. Respondents include public and

private school principals, teachers and

school and LEA staff persons.

Requests for copies of the proposed

information collection request may be

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or

should be addressed to Vivian Reese,

Department of Education, 400 Maryland

Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional

Office Building 3, Washington, DC

20202–4651. Requests may also be

electronically mailed to the internet

address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or

faxed to 202–708–9346. Please specify

the complete title of the information

collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the

collection activity requirements should

be directed to Kathy Axt at at her

internet address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov.

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339.

[FR Doc. 01–11203 Filed 5–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests.

SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory

Information Management, Office of the

Chief Information Officer, invites

comments on the proposed information

collection requests as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: An emergency review has been

requested in accordance with the Act

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507(j)), since public

harm is reasonably likely to result if

normal clearance procedures are

followed. Approval by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

been requested by May 7, 2001. A

regular clearance process is also

beginning. Interested persons are

invited to submit comments on or before

July 3, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

regarding the emergency review should

be addressed to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Desk

Officer: Department of Education, Office

of Management and Budget; 725 17th

Street, N.W., Room 10235, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

D.C. 20503 or should be electronically

mailed to the internet address

Lauren_Wittenberg@omb.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires

that the Director of OMB provide

interested Federal agencies and the

public an early opportunity to comment

on information collection requests. The

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) may amend or waive the

requirement for public consultation to

the extent that public participation in

the approval process would defeat the

purpose of the information collection,

violate State or Federal law, or

substantially interfere with any agency’s

ability to perform its statutory

obligations. The Leader, Information

Management Group, Office of the Chief

Information Officer, publishes this

notice containing proposed information

collection requests at the beginning of

the Departmental review of the

information collection. Each proposed

information collection, grouped by

office, contains the following: (1) Type

of review requested, e.g., new, revision,

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2)

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)

Description of the need for, and

proposed use of, the information; (5)

Respondents and frequency of

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or

Recordkeeping burden. ED invites

public comment. The Department of

Education is especially interested in

public comment addressing the

following issues: (1) Is this collection

necessary to the proper functions of the

Department; (2) will this information be

processed and used in a timely manner;

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4) how might the Department enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (5) how

might the Department minimize the

burden of this collection on

respondents, including through the use

of information technology.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

John Tressler,

Leader, Regulatory Information Management,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education

Type of Review: New.

Title: School Renovation, IDEA, and

Technology Grant Application.

Abstract: ED will use the information

collected through this application to

award grants to approximately 52 State

educational agencies that will conduct

competitive grant processes to award

subgrants to eligible local educational

agencies (LEAs). The information will

also be used to describe to the Congress

and the public how these grants are

being used.

Additional Information: The

Department of Education is requesting

emergency clearance from OMB for the

School Renovation, Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and

Technology Grant Application due to an

unanticipated event and possibly

causing public harm. Since the passage

of the FY 2001 Appropriations Act with

this program’s enactment, the

Department has been meeting with

interested groups and with contact

persons in the States to determine how