27646 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL 6980–2]

Agency Information Collection

Activities; Proposed Collection;

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request; 2001 Emergency

Planning and Community Right-ToKnow Act (EPCRA) and Risk

Management Program (RMP)

Implementation Status Questionnaire

for Tribal Emergency Response

Commissions (TERCs) and Their Duly

Appointed Local Emergency Planning

Committee(s) (LEPCs)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), this document announces

that the following Information

Collection Request (ICR) has been

forwarded to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review and

approval: 2001 Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

and Risk Management Program (RMP)

Implementation Status Questionnaire

for Tribal Emergency Response

Commissions (TERCs) and Their Duly

Appointed Local Emergency Planning

Committee(s) (LEPCs), EPA ICR No.

2004.01. The ICR describes the nature of

the information collection and its

expected burden and cost; where

appropriate, it includes the actual data

collection instrument.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing

EPA ICR No. 2004.01 to the following

addresses: Sandy Farmer, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Collection Strategies Division (Mail

Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer

for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

a copy of the ICR, contact Sandy Farmer

at EPA by phone at (202) 260–2740, by

E-mail at

Farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or

download off the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA ICR

No. 2004.01. For technical questions

about the ICR contact Sam Agpawa on

415–744–2342.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: 2001 Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

and Risk Management Program (RMP)

Implementation Status Questionnaire

for Tribal Emergency Response

Commissions (TERCs) and Their Duly

Appointed Local Emergency Planning

Committee(s) (LEPCs), EPA ICR No.

2004.01. This is a new collection.

Abstract: The Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX,

Superfund Division, proposes to

conduct a Regional survey of the Tribal

Emergency Response Commissions

(TERCs). The information collected in

this survey will be used to assess the

progress, status, needs, resources and

activity level of TERCs. The information

will be used by EPA Region IX staff to

gain a better understanding of EPA

Region IX tribes’ actual implementation

of EPCRA and RMP. The Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986 (EPCRA), also known

as SARA Title III, and the Risk

Management Program (RMP) under the

Clean Air Act, 1990, section 112(r) and

40 CFR part 68, June 20, 1996,

introduced fundamental changes in the

regulation of chemical facilities and the

prevention of and preparedness for

chemical accidents. These laws and

rules seek to improve emergency

preparedness and reduce the risk of

chemical accidents by providing

information to citizens about the

chemicals in their community. EPCRA,

in conjunction with the RMP

requirements, sought to create

partnerships between all levels of

government, tribal governments, and the

regulated tribal community to identify,

prevent, plan, prepare and respond to

hazardous material risks in our

communities, including tribal lands,

reservations, rancherias and colonies.

The purpose of this survey is to obtain

input from the tribal organizations to

improve Region IX’s EPCRA and RMP

programs.

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 Federal Register document

required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d),

soliciting comments on this collection

of information was published on

January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1975); no

comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public

reporting and record keeping burden for

this collection of information is

estimated to average 2 hours per

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.

Respondents/Affected Entities: TERCs

and Tribal LEPCs.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

145.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

290 Hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital,

Operating/Maintenance Cost Burden:

$0.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden, including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the addresses listed above.

Please refer to EPA ICR No. 2004.01 in

any correspondence.

Dated: May 3, 2001.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 01–12578 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6618–1]

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 May 07, 2001 Through May 11,

2001

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 010164, Draft EIS, AFS, MT,

Little Bear-Wilson Timber Sale and

Road Decommission Project,

Implementation, Gallatin Range,

Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman

Ranger District, Gallatin County, MT,

Comment Period Ends: July 02, 2001,

Contact: Tim Hancock (406) 522–

2554.

EIS No. 010165, Draft EIS, AFS, UT, Flat

Canyon Federal Coal Lease Tract

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27647

(UTU–77114), Application for

Learning, Manti-La Sal National

Forest, Ferron-Price Ranges District,

Sanpete and Emery Counties, UT,

Comment Period Ends: July 02, 2001,

Contact: Stan Perks (801) 539–4038.

The US Department of Agriculture

Forest Service and US Department of

Interior Bureau of Land Management

are Joint Lead Agencies for this

project.

EIS No. 010166, Draft EIS, NPS, VA,

Green Spring Colonial National

Historical Park Management Plan,

Implementation, James City County,

VA, Comment Period Ends: July 11,

2001, Contact: Alec Gould (757) 898–

3400.

EIS No. 010167, Draft EIS, AFS, UT,

WY, Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan, Implementation,

several counties, UT and Uinta

County, WY, Comment Period Ends:

September 04, 2001, Contact: Jack

Blackwell (801) 524–3908.

EIS No. 010168, Final EIS, AFS, MT,

Knox-Brooks Timber Sales and Road

Rehabilitation, Implementation, Lola

National Forest, Super Ranger

District, Mineral County, MT, Wait

Period Ends: June 18, 2001, Contact:

Bruce Erickson (406) 822–3957.

EIS No. 010169, Draft EIS, FTA, NC,

Phase I Regional Rail System

Improvements, Durham to Raleigh to

North Raleigh, Implementation,

Durham and Wake Counties, NC,

Comment Period Ends: July 20, 2001,

Contact: Alex McNeil (404) 562–3511.

EIS No. 010170, Final EIS, FHW, CA,

San Francisco—Oakland Bay Bridge,

East Span Seismic Safety Project,

Connection between I–80 Yerba

Buena Island and Oakland, US Coast

Guard Permit and COE Section 404

Permit, San Francisco and Alameda

Counties, CA, Wait Period Ends: June

18, 2001, Contact: C. Glenn Clinton

(916) 498–5020.

EIS No. 010171, Draft EIS, FTA, CA, San

Fernando Valley East-West Transit

Corridor Project, Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT) on former Burbank/ Chandler

Southern Pacific Rail Right-of-Way,

Development and Implementation,

Los Angeles County. CA , Comment

Period Ends : July 03, 2001, Contact:

Ervin Poka (213) 202–3950.

EIS No. 010172, Draft EIS, FHW, MD,

MD–210 (Indian Head Highway)

Multi-Modal Study, MD–210

Improvements between I–95/I–495

(Capitol Beltway) and MD–228

Funding and US COE Section 404

Permit Issuance, Prince George’s

County, MD , Comment Period Ends:

September 23, 2001, Contact: Nelson

Castellanos (410) 962–4342.

EIS No. 010173, Draft EIS, USN, CA,

Point Molate Property Naval Fuel

Depot (NFD) for the Disposal and

Reuse, Implementation, Fleet and

Industrial Supply Center, City of

Richmond, Contra Costa County, CA ,

Comment Period Ends: July 02, 2001,

Contact: Roberta Montana (619) 532–

0942.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 010088, Draft EIS, FHW, NB,

Lincoln South and East Beltways

Project, To Complete a

Circumferential Transportation

System linking I–80 on the north and

U.S.77 on the west, Funding, COE 404

Permit, Lancaster County, NB,

Comment Period Ends: June 15, 2001,

Contact: Edward Kosola (402) 437–

5973. Revision of FR Notice Published

on 03/23/2001: CEQ Review Period

Ending 05/07/2001 has been Extended

to 06/15/2001.

EIS No. 010159, Draft Supplement,

DOE, NV, Geologic Repository for the

Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and

High-Level Radioactive Waste,

Construction, Operation, Monitoring

and Eventually Closing a Geologic

Repository at Yucca Mountain,

Updated and Additional Information,

Nye County, NV , Comment Period

Ends: June 25, 2001, Contact: Jane R.

Summerson (702) 794–1493. Revision

of FR notice published on 05/11/2001:

Correction to Title.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–12570 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6618–2]

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.

Summary of Rating Definitions

Environmental Impact of the Action

Lo—Lack of Objections

The EPA review has not identified

any potential environmental impacts

requiring substantive changes to the

proposal. The review may have

disclosed opportunities for application

of mitigation measures that could be

accomplished with no more than minor

changes to the proposal.

EC—Environmental Concerns

The EPA review has identified

environmental impacts the should be

avoided in order to fully protect the

environment. Corrective measures may

require changes to the preferred

alternative or application of mitigation

measures that can reduce the

environmental impact. EPA would like

to work with the lead agency to reduce

these impacts.

EO—Environmental Objections

The EPA review has identified

significant environmental impacts that

must be avoided in order to provide

adequate protection for the

environment. Corrective measures may

require substantial changes to the

preferred alternative or consideration of

some other project alternative

(including the no action alternative or a

new alternative). EPA intends to work

with the lead agency to reduce these

impacts.

EU—Environmentally Unsatisfactory

The EPA review has identified

adverse environmental impacts that are

of sufficient magnitude that they are

unsatisfactory from the standpoint of

public health or welfare or

environmental quality. EPA intends to

work with the lead agency to reduce

these impacts. If the potentially

unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected

at the final EIS stage, this proposal will

be recommended for referral to the CEQ.

Adequacy of the Impact Statement

Category 1—Adequate

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately

sets forth the environmental impact(s) of

the preferred alternative and those of

the alternatives reasonably available to

the project or action. No further analysis

or data collection is necessary, but the

reviewer may suggest the addition of

clarifying language or information.

Category 2—Insufficient Information

The draft EIS does not contain

sufficient information for EPA to fully

assess environmental impacts that

should be avoided in order to fully

protect the environment, or the EPA

reviewer has identified new reasonably

available alternatives that are within the

spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the

draft EIS, which could reduce the

environmental impacts of the action.

The identified additional information,