Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30915

to the relevant meeting so that

appropriate arrangements can be made.

6. Request for Nominations for the

Advisory Council on Clean Air

Compliance Analysis (the Council)

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is soliciting nominations

to the Council, or panels that provide

the Council with detailed technical

advice, for future reviews of the

Agency’s assessments under section 812

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of the

effects of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments on the ‘‘public health,

economy and the environment of the

United States.’’ By Statute, the Council

is composed of ‘‘not less than nine

members * * * in the fields of health

and environmental effects of air

pollution, economic analysis,

environmental sciences, and other fields

that the Administrator determines to be

appropriate.’’ Historically, the Council

has been supported by two

subcommittees, the Health and

Ecological Effects Subcommittee and the

Air Quality Modeling Subcommittees,

which have advised the Council on

technical issues. The EPA is especially

seeking individuals with expertise in

epidemiology related to air pollution

effects, air quality modeling, and cost

and benefit assessment as related to the

effects of control of air pollution.

Any interested person or organization

may nominate qualified individuals for

membership on the subcommittee.

Nominees should be identified by name,

occupation, position, address and

telephone number. To be considered, all

nominations must include a current

resume providing the nominee’s

background, experience and

qualifications.

The criteria for selecting Council

members or members of panels

providing the Council with detailed

technical advice, are that members be

recognized experts in their fields; that

members be as impartial and objective

as possible; that members represent an

array of backgrounds and perspectives

(within their disciplines); and that

members be available to participate

fully in the review, which will be

conducted over a relatively short time

frame. Members will be asked to attend

at least one public meeting followed by

at least one public telephone conference

meeting over the course of 3 months;

they will be asked to participate in the

discussion of key issues and

assumptions at these meetings, and they

will be asked to review and to help

finalize the products and outputs of the

Council or technical panel. Any

technical panel will make

recommendations to the Council for

approval of the Board’s report and

transmittal to the Administrator.

Nominations should be submitted to

Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal

Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone

(202) 564–4562; FAX (202) 501–0323; or

via e-mail at nugent.angela@epa.gov no

later than Wednesday, August 1, 2001.

The Agency will not formally

acknowledge or respond to

nominations.

General Information

Additional information concerning

the EPA Science Advisory Board, its

structure, function, and composition,

may be found on the SAB Website

(http://www.epa.gov/sab) and in EPA–

SAB–01–002, Science Advisory Board

FY 2000 Annual Staff Report: Making

Science Real which is available on the

SAB Website or from the SAB

Publications Staff at (202) 564–4533 or

via fax at (202) 501–0256. Committee

rosters, draft Agendas and meeting

calendars are also located on our

website.

Dated: June 4, 2001.

John R. Fowle III,

Acting Staff Director, EPA Science Advisory

Board.

[FR Doc. 01–14479 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6618–8]

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–L65378–ID Rating

EC2, Clean Slate Ecosystem

Management Project, Aquatic and

Terrestrial Restoration, Nez Perce

National Forest, Salmon River Ranger

District, Idaho County, ID.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding purpose and need,

alternatives, environmental monitoring,

cumulative impacts, prescribed burning,

and Clean Water Act TMDL protocols.

EPA has requested inclusion of a more

easy to follow statement of overriding

purpose and need; the addition of a nograzing alternative that includes active

habitat restoration; the addition of

specific and enforceable standards;

thresholds and responsible parties for

environmental monitoring; additional

detail on implementation and

contingencies for the prescribed burning

program; additional analysis of

cumulative impacts, and more detail on

the process to be used for addressing

TMDL protocols.

ERP No. D–BLM–G65078–NM Rating

LO, San Felipe Pueblo Land Exchange,

Involves Exchanges Federal Lands to

Private Lands, Acquisition, Sandoval

and Santa Fe Cos. NM.

Summary: EPA has no objection to the

proposed plan of action.

ERP No. D–BLM–K65330–CA Rating

LO, Northern and Eastern Colorado

Desert Plan (Plan), Implementation,

Comprehensive Framework for

Managing Species and Habitats (BLM),

Joshua Tree National Park (JTNP) and

Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery

Range, California Desert, Riverside,

Imperial and San Bernardino Counties,

CA.

Summary: EPA has no objections to

the proposed plan.

ERP No. D–FHW–F40393–MI Rating

EC2, I–96/Airport Area Access Study,

Transportation Improvements,

Surrounding the Gerald R. Ford

International Airport, Kent County, MI.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding wetlands, woodlands and

water quality impacts to Thornapple

River, Martin and Beck Drain and Little

Plaster Creek.

ERP No. D–FHW–F40394–MI Rating

EO2, I–94/Rehabilitation Project,

Transportation Improvements to a 6.7

mile portion of I–94 from east I–96 west

end to Conner Avenue on the east end,

Funding and NPDES Permit, City of

Detroit, Wayne County, MI.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections because of

issues in the following areas: scope of

analysis, purpose and need, alternatives

analysis, air quality, noise, pedestrian

and bicyclist impacts, costs, and

cumulative impacts.

ERP No. D–FHW–G40160–OK Rating

LO, I–40 Crosstown Expressway

Transportation Improvements, From I–

235/I–35 Interchange West to Meridan

Avenue, Funding, Oklahoma City, OK.

Summary: EPA has no objection to the

selection of the preferred alternative.

EPA however asks that additional

information on cultural resource

30916 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

mitigation, SHPO coordination, and

hazardous waste site baseline data be

incorporated in the FEIS to strengthen

the document.

ERP No. D–FRC–E08021–00 Rating

EC2, Florida Gas Transmission (FGT)

Phase V Expansion Project, FGT Natural

Gas Pipeline and Associated Above

Ground Facilities, Construction and

Operation, Approvals and Permit

Issuance, several counties of FL, AL and

MS.

Summary: EPA has environmental

concerns about the proposed project. In

particular, air quality, wetlands impact,

water quality, noise, endangered species

and Environmental Justice issues

warrant further discussion as the project

progresses.

ERP No. D–NOA–L91012–WA Rating

EO2, Anadromous Fish Agreements and

Habitat Conservation Plans for the

Welss, Rocky Reach, and Rock Island

Hydroelectric Projects, Implementation,

Incidental Take Permits, Chelan and

Douglas Counties, WA.

Summary: EPA objects to selection of

Alternative 3 as the preferred

alternative. The proposed framework for

the HCPs fails to demonstrate that

salmon and fish species of concern

would be protected and restored during

the next 50 years. Specific problems

with the framework and accompanying

analyses include Columbia River bull

trout not being included in the HCP or

extensively analyzed, development of

biological information being deferred

until the writing of the Biological

Opinion, a lack of monitoring

methodology, and inadequate water

quality information. EPA recommends

that NMFS invite USF&WS to become a

cooperating agency to accommodate

inclusion of Columbia River bull trout

in the context of the HCP and that it

address concerns about inadequate

information and analyses described

above.

ERP No. D–NRS–D28013–WV Rating

EC2, Upper Tygart Valley River

Watershed Plan, Water Supply Project,

Approval and Funding, Randolph and

Pocahontas Counties, WV.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding loss

of native trout habitat and wetlands and

suggested that more information be

provided on stream and wetland

mitigation.

ERP No. DA–FHW–F40347–IL Rating

EO2, FAP Route 340 (I–355 South

Extension), Interstate Route 55 to

Interstate Route 80, Additional

Information for the Tollroad/Freeway

Alternative, Funding, US Coast Guard

Permit and COE Section 404 Permit,

Cook, DuPage and Will Counties, IL.

Summary: EPA raised objections to

the selection of alternatives. EPA’s

objections would be resolved if an

additional Supplemental EIS were to be

issued with a full environmental impact

assessment of the Lemont Bypass

Alternative. Our Section 404 objections

would be resolved if sufficient wetlands

impacts information on the Lemont

Bypass Alternative is submitted to

permit a finding of compliance with the

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–COE–K36107–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.

Summary: No formal comment letter

was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–FHW–E40739–NC US 17

New Bern Bypass Construction, JonesCraven County Line to NC–1438 near

Vanceboro, Funding, Section 404 and

U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit, Craven

County, NC.

Summary: EPA’s review indicates that

all earlier concerns have been addressed

satisfactorily. Adverse community,

cultural and natural environmental

resource impacts have been minimized

substantially. The 4-lane highway

improvement project on new alignment

includes commitments for good

mitigation of identified wetlands losses,

stormwater runoff control, and habitat

impacts.

ERP No. F–IBR–K39049–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.

Summary: EPA recognized the

commitment to mitigation for biological

resources, cumulative impacts, safety,

and large mammals. We recommended

the ROD include additional information

on consultation with tribal governments

on cultural resources and local

socioeconomic effects from loss of canal

seepage water.

ERP No. FS–COE–K36083–CA

Guadalupe River Flood Control and

Adjacent Streams Investigation,

Proposed Modifications to the

Guadalupe River Project, Downtown

San Jose, Santa Clara County, CA.

Summary: EPA found the FGRER/

FSEIS adequately addresses most of the

issues raised in our comment letter on

the DSEIS. We reiterated our support for

additional measures to control mercury

impacts through sediment control traps

and mitigation measures which would

remove ‘‘hard’’ engineered flood control

structures in other parts of the basin.

EPA expressed continued concern with

the use of invert stabilization

mechanisms.

Dated: June 4, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–14513 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6618–7]

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 May 29, 2001 Through June 01,

2001

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 010194, Draft EIS, FHW, AL,

Memphis to Atlanta Corridor Study

(DPS–A002(002)), Proposal to Build

Highway from the Mississippi/

Alabama State Line to Interstate 65,

Funding and COE Section 404 Permit,

Colbert, Franklin, Lauderdale,

Lawrence, Limestone and Morgan

Counties, AL, Comment Period Ends:

July 30, 2001, Contact: Joe D.

Wilkerson (334) 223–7370.

EIS No. 010195, Draft EIS, FHW, LA, I–

49 Connector, Construction from

Evangeline Thruway US–90 and US–

197 in Urbanized Lafayette, Funding,

COE Section 10 and 404 Permits,

Parish of Lafayette, LA, Comment

Period Ends: July 23, 2001, Contact:

Bill Farr (225) 757–7615.

EIS No. 010196, Draft EIS, FHW, FL, I–

4 Corridor Improvements, Upgrading

the Safety and Mobility of the existing

I–4, from west of FL–528 (Bee Line

Expressway) interchange in Orange

County to east of FL–472 interchange

in Volusia County, Funding, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permits, NPDES

Permit, Orange, Seminole, and

Volusia Counties, FL, Comment

Period Ends: July 23, 2001, Contact:

Donald Davis (850) 942–9650.

EIS No. 010197, Draft EIS, BOP, FL, GA,

MS, AL, Criminal Alien Requirement

(CAR) II, To Contract for a Private

Contractor-Owned/ContractorOperated Correctional Facility in

Florida, Mississippi, Georgia and

Alabama to House Adult-Male and

Non-US Citizen, AL, FL, GA and/or

MS, Comment Period Ends Due: July