Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Notices 34631

Comment date: July 10, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

15. Southern California Edison

Company

[Docket No. ER01–2349–000]

Take notice, that on June 19, 2001,

Southern California Edison Company

(SCE) tendered for filing the following

agreements between Nevada Power

Company, Salt River Project

Agricultural Improvement and Power

District, SCE, and the Department of

Water and Power of the City of Los

Angeles (collectively Parties):

Amended & Restated Mohave Project

Plant Site Conveyance and CoTenancy Agreement

Amended & Restated Mohave Project

Operating Agreement

Amended & Restated Eldorado System

Conveyance and Co-Tenancy

Agreement

Amended & Restated Eldorado

Operating Agreement

Amended & Restated Agreement for

Additional Nevada Power Company

Connection to Mohave Project 500 kV

Switchyard

Facilities Services Agreement

The amended and restated agreements

and the Facilities Services Agreement

reflect the Parties’ agreement to transfer

the Mohave 500 kV Switchyard from the

Mohave Project to the Eldorado System.

Copies of this filing were served upon

the Public Utilities Commission of the

State of California, each of the Parties,

and the California Independent System

Operator

SCE requests that these agreements be

made effective August 18, 2001.

Comment date: July 10, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

16. Public Service Company of New

Mexico

[Docket No. ER01–2350–000]

Take notice that on June 19, 2001,

Public Service Company of New Mexico

(PNM) submitted for filing two executed

service agreements with the State of

Nevada, Colorado River Commission

(CRC), under the terms of PNM’s Open

Access Transmission Tariff. One

agreement is for short-term firm pointto-point transmission service and one is

for non-firm point-to-point transmission

service.

The effective date for the agreements

is May 29, 2001, the date of execution.

PNM’s filing is available for public

inspection at its offices in Albuquerque,

New Mexico.

Copies of the filing have been sent to

CRC and to the New Mexico Public

Regulation Commission.

Comment date: July 10, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

17. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

[Docket No. ER01–2351–000]

Take notice that on June 19, 2001,

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM)

tendered for filing an amendment to

section 18.17.1 of the Amended and

Restated Operating Agreement of PJM

Interconnection, L.L.C. (Operating

Agreement). The proposed amendment

will permit the release of certain PJM

member confidential information to the

North American Electric Reliability

Council and to neighboring reliability

councils solely for the purpose of

enhancing reliability in the MidAtlantic Area Council, the

administrative functions of which are

performed by PJM, and its neighboring

reliability councils. Copies of this filing

were served upon all PJM members and

each state electric utility regulatory

commission in the PJM control area

PJM requests an effective date of

August 29, 2001.

Comment date: July 10, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

18. Bridgeport Energy LLC

[Docket No. ER01–2352–000]

Take notice that on June 19, 2001,

Bridgeport Energy LLC tendered for

filing the First Amended and Restated

Agreement between Bridgeport Energy

LLC and Duke Energy Trading

Marketing, LLC. Bridgeport seeks a

waiver of the Commission’s prior notice

requirements.

Comment date: July 10, 2001, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraph

E. Any person desiring to be heard or

to protest such filing should file a

motion to intervene or protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 385.214). All such motions or

protests should be filed on or before the

comment date. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of these filings are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection. This filing may also be

viewed on the Internet at http://

www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call

202–208–2222 for assistance).

Comments, protests, and interventions

may be filed electronically via the

internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions

on the Commission’s web site at

http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–16372 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–7004–5]

Proposed Settlement Agreement,

Clean Air Act Petition for Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement

agreement providing for rulemaking to

amend regulations issued pursuant to

section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act.

SUMMARY: EPA hereby gives notice of a

proposed settlement agreement in the

case entitled American Coke and Coal

Chemicals Inst. v. EPA, No. 99–1339

(consolidated with American Crop Prot.

Ass’n v. EPA, No. 99–1332) (D.C. Cir.).

EPA issues this notice in accordance

with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act

(the ‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g),which

requires EPA to give notice and provide

an opportunity for public comment on

proposed settlement agreements.

The litigation challenges EPA’s

promulgation of the final rule entitled

National Emissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Pesticide

Active Ingredient Production (‘‘PAI

NESHAP’’ or the ‘‘rule’’). 64 FR 33550

(June 23, 1999). The American Coke and

Coal Chemicals Institute (‘‘ACCCI’’)

filed a petition for review of the rule

under section 307(b) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7607(b). ACCCI’s challenge

concerns, among other things, the

applicability of the rule to coal tar

distillation units that produce creosote.

The proposed Settlement Agreement

provides that EPA will undertake a

rulemaking to revise the definition of

‘‘process tank’’ to eliminate the current

reference to processing upstream and

downstream of such tanks, and to

provide additional examples of the

types of tanks covered by the definition.

For a period of thirty (30) days

following the date of publication of this

notice, EPA will accept written

comments relating to the proposed

Settlement Agreement from persons

who are not named as parties or

interveners to this litigation. EPA or the

34632 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Notices

Department of Justice may withhold or

withdraw consent to the proposed

Settlement Agreement if the comments

disclose facts or circumstances that

indicate that the agreement is

inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or

inconsistent with the requirements of

the Act. Unless EPA or the Department

of Justice makes such a determination

following the comment period, EPA will

take the actions set forth in the

Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the proposed Settlement

Agreement is available from Phyllis

Cochran, Air and Radiation Law Office

(2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,

(202) 564–5566. Written comments

should be sent to Paul R. Cort, Esq., at

the above address and must be

submitted on or before July 30, 2001.

Dated: June 20, 2001.

Alan W. Eckert,

Associate General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–16440 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6619–5]

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–FHW–F40395–WI Rating

EC2, 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.

Summary: EPA’s review identified

issues relating to direct and cumulative

impacts to wetlands; indirect impacts

from increased urbanization; and

expressed concerns regarding impacts to

water quality.

ERP No. D–FHW–H40171–NB Rating

EC2, 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.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding the range of alternatives

meeting the purpose and need for the

project, archeological resources and

asked for more information regarding

wetlands mitigation.

ERP No. D–FTA–B59001–CT Rating

LO, New Britain—Hartford Busway

Project, Proposal to Build an Exclusive

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Facility,

Located in the Towns/Cities of New

Britain, Newington, West Hartford and

Hartford, CT.

Summary: EPA raised no objections to

the proposed project and encouraged

CTDOT/FHWA to consider emission

retrofit devices to reduce emissions.

ERP No. D–FTA–K40243–CA Rating

EC2, Mid-City/Westside Transit

Corridor Improvements, Wilshire Bus

Rapid Transit and Exposition

Transitway, Construction and

Operation, Funding, Section 404 Permit,

Los Angeles County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

regarding Environmental Justice impacts

along the Exposition corridor and the

storage and maintenance sites. EPA also

expressed concerns regarding the

provision of Park and Ride facilities in

excess of parking demand. EPA

requested additional analysis and

documentation on both of these issues.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–J61103–MT

Discovery Ski Area Expansion,

Implementation, Special-Use-Permit

and COE Section 404 Permit,

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest,

Pintler Ranger District, Rumsey

Mountain, Granite County, MT.

Summary: EPA continues to express

concerns regarding the information used

to support expansion of the ski area;

inadequate analysis; disclosure of

indirect effects of induced development

associated with the ski area expansion;

and growth pressures to serve and

accommodate increasing numbers of

skiers.

ERP No. F–FHW–F40784–OH OH–7

(LAW–7) Relocation, OH–7 and OH–527

to a point Northeast of Rome Township

and OH–607 from East Huntington

Bridge to an Interchange with proposed

OH–7 and OH–775, Funding, Lawrence

County, OH.

Summary: Because the final EIS

indicates that the Feasible Alternative B

has been selected for implementation,

EPA’s previously expressed

environmental concerns have now been

fully addressed and resolved.

ERP No. F–FHW–G40156–TX TX–130

Construction, I–35 of Georgetown to I–

10 near Seguin, Funding, COE Section

404 Permit, Williamson, Travis,

Caldwell, Guadalupe Counties, TX.

Summary: EPA’s review found that

comments offered on the draft EIS have

been responded to in the final EIS. EPA

had no additional comments.

ERP No. F–FHW–J40152–CO South I–

25 and US 85 Corridors Improvements,

CO–470 to Castle Rock, Funding,

Douglas County, CO.

Summary: EPA was pleased with the

cumulative impacts assessment done by

FHWA and CDOT as well as the

coordination and mitigation planning

initiated with other parties. EPA

expressed concern for the lack of

quantification of secondary impacts to

some potentially affected resources.

ERP No. F–FHW–K40232–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.

Summary: EPA’s review of the final

EIS found that the document adequately

addressed the issues raised in EPA’s

comment letter regarding the draft EIS.

Dated: June 26, 2001.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 01–16458 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6619–4]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental

Impact Statements Filed June 18, 2001

Through June 22, 2001 Pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 010226, Draft EIS, NPS, WY,

Devil’s Tower National Monument

General Management Plan,

Implementation, Crook County, WY,

Comment Period Ends: August 13,

2001, Contact: Chas Cartwright (307)

467–5283.

EIS No. 010227, Draft EIS, MMS, CA,

Delineation Drilling Activities in

Federal Water Offshore, Santa Barbara

County, Federal Outer Continental

Shelf (OCS), Mobile Offshore Drilling

Unit (MODU) Santa Barbara County,

CA, Comment Period Ends: August