77024 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices

D. What Information is EPA Particularly

Interested in?

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of

PRA, EPA specifically solicits

comments and information to enable it

to:

1. Evaluate whether the proposed

collections of information are necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility.

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the

Agency’s estimates of the burdens of the

proposed collections of information.

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected.

4. Minimize the burden of the

collections of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated or

electronic collection technologies or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

IV. What Information Collection

Activity or ICR Does this Action Apply

to?

EPA is seeking comments on the

following ICR:

Title: TSCA Section 8(a) Preliminary

Assessment Information Rule.

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0586.09,

OMB No. 2070–0054.

ICR status: This ICR is currently

scheduled to expire on December 31,

2000. 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 information

collections appear on the collection

instruments or instructions, in the

Federal Register notices for related

rulemakings and ICR notices and, if the

collection is contained in a regulation,

in a table of OMB approval numbers in

40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: TSCA section 8(a)

authorizes EPA to promulgate rules

under which manufacturers, importers

and processors of chemical substances

and mixtures must maintain records and

submit reports to EPA. EPA has

promulgated the Preliminary

Assessment Information Rule (PAIR)

under TSCA section 8(a). EPA uses

PAIR to collect information to identify,

assess, and manage human health and

environmental risks from chemical

substances, mixtures, or categories.

PAIR requires chemical manufacturers

and importers to complete a

standardized reporting form to help

evaluate the potential for adverse

human health and environmental effects

caused by the manufacture or

importation of identified chemical

substances, mixtures, or categories.

Chemicals identified by EPA or any

other Federal agency, for which a

justifiable information need for

production, use or exposure-related data

can be satisfied by the use of the PAIR

are proper subjects for TSCA section

8(a) PAIR rulemaking. In most instances

the information that EPA receives from

a PAIR report is sufficient to satisfy the

information need in question.

Responses to the collection of

information are mandatory (see 40 CFR

part 712). Respondents may claim all or

part of a notice confidential. EPA will

disclose information that is covered by

a claim of confidentiality only to the

extent permitted by, and in accordance

with, the procedures in TSCA section 14

and 40 CFR part 2.

V. What are EPA’s Burden and Cost

Estimates for this ICR?

Under the PRA, ‘‘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.

For this collection it 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.

The ICR provides a detailed

explanation of this estimate, which is

only briefly summarized in this notice.

The annual public burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 28.45 hours per response. The

following is a summary of the estimates

taken from the ICR:

Respondents/affected entities:

Manufacturers and importers of

chemical substances, mixtures, or

categories.

Estimated total number of potential

respondents: 48.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated average number of

responses for each respondent: 2.4.

Estimated total annual burden hours:

3,355.

Estimated total annual burden costs:

$250,000.

VI. Are There Changes in the Estimates

from the Last Approval?

There is a net decrease of 134 hours

(from 3,489 hours to 3,355 hours) in the

total estimated respondent burden

compared with that identified in the

information collection request most

recently approved by OMB. This

decrease is attributable to carrying

through in the burden hour totals the

adjustment made to the unit burden of

the CBI substantiation requirement,

which is that only 75% of sites or

reports are expected to make CBI claims.

This adjustment was made in the unit

burden calculations in the previous ICR

but was not carried through in the

industry totals. In addition, a few minor

mathematical corrections were made to

the estimates in the previous ICR.

VII. What is the Next Step in the

Process for this ICR?

EPA will consider the comments

received and amend the ICR as

appropriate. The final ICR package will

then be submitted to OMB for review

and approval pursuant to 5 CFR

1320.12. EPA will issue another Federal

Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR

1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the

submission of the ICR to OMB and the

opportunity to submit additional

comments to OMB. If you have any

questions about this ICR or the approval

process, please contact the technical

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Susan H. Wayland,

Acting Assistant Administrator for

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 00–31335 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6913–7]

Proposed Settlement Agreement,

Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement

agreement; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended

(‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is

hereby given of a proposed settlement

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices 77025

agreement, which was filed with the

United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit by the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) on November 21, 2000,

to address a lawsuit filed by the Sierra

Club and the New York Public Interest

Research Group (collectively referred to

as ‘‘Sierra Club’’). Sierra Club filed a

petition for review pursuant to section

307(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)

challenging EPA’s extension of the

interim approval of title V permitting

programs for approximately 80

permitting authorities. Sierra Club v.

EPA, No. 00–1262 (D.C. Cir.).

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed settlement agreement must be

received by January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Jan M. Tierney, Air and

Radiation Law Office (2344), Office of

General Counsel, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of the proposed settlement

agreement are available from Phyllis J.

Cochran, (202) 564–5566. A copy of the

proposed settlement agreement was

filed with the Clerk of the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit on November 21,

1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sierra

Club alleges that EPA acted contrary to

law by extending the interim approval

of title V permitting programs for more

than 80 permitting authorities. Under

title V of the CAA, EPA promulgated

regulations specifying the requirements

for State operating permit programs.

States, or local permitting authorities to

which the States delegated authority,

submitted programs to EPA for approval

in the early to mid 1990’s. Pursuant to

section 502(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7661a(g), EPA granted interim approval

of a number title V permitting programs.

Subsequently, EPA extended the interim

approval of programs through a series of

notices in the Federal Register. Most

recently, on May 22, 2000, EPA took

final action extending the interim

approval for approximately 80 title V

permitting programs and Sierra Club

challenged that final action.

The settlement agreement provides

that Sierra Club’s challenge to EPA’s

final action will be stayed pending

several actions by the Agency. Pursuant

to the key provisions of the settlement

agreement, Sierra Club may request the

court to lift the stay of the litigation if

EPA fails to: (A) Propose by December

15, 2000, amendments to 40 CFR

70.4(d)(2)to eliminate language that

could be construed to grant EPA

authority to extend further interim

approval of a title V permitting program;

(B) take final action by June 1, 2000,

promulgating such amendments; (C)

notify by December 1, 2000, each

permitting authority by letter that a

federal program will apply if EPA has

not fully approved a revised title V

permit program for the area by

December 1, 2001; and (D) issue by

December 1, 2000, a notice informing

the public that they may submit

comment identifying deficiencies with

approved or interim approved title V

permit programs and that EPA will

respond to such comments by specified

dates.

For a period of thirty (30) days

following the date of publication of this

notice, the Agency will receive written

comments relating to the proposed

settlement agreement from persons who

were not named as parties or interveners

to the litigation in question. EPA or the

Department of Justice may withdraw or

withhold consent to the proposed

settlement agreement if the comments

disclose facts or considerations that

indicate that such consent is

inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or

inconsistent with the requirements of

the Act. Unless EPA or the Department

of Justice determine, following the

comment period, that consent is

inappropriate, the settlement agreement

will be final.

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Anna Wolgast,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–31334 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6913–6]

Notice of Settlement Extension:

National Ambient Air Quality Standard;

Sulfur Oxides Remand

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of settlement extension.

SUMMARY: In 1998, the United States

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

remanded EPA’s decision to not revise

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard for sulfur oxides for further

explanation by EPA. American Lung

Association v. Browner, 134 F. 3d 388

(D.C. Cir. 1998). Subsequently, the

American Lung Association (ALA) and

EPA agreed that EPA would propose a

response to the court’s remand by

summer, 1999 and that EPA would

finalize its response to the remand by

the end of the year 2000. In exchange,

ALA agreed to not file a petition for

rehearing en banc with the court and to

not pursue any mandatory duty or

unreasonable delay claims regarding the

remand prior to January, 2001.

In September 1999, EPA and ALA met

to discuss the status of the remand and

agreed to extend the summer, 1999

deadline until January 15, 2000.

Since that time EPA and ALA have

continued discussions and EPA has

continued to work on the remand. As a

result, EPA and ALA have agreed that

by the end of 2000, EPA will publish a

notice in the Federal Register

describing the status of the remand and

related activities and soliciting

appropriate comment. For its part, ALA

has agreed not to pursue any mandatory

duty or unreasonable delay claims

regarding the remand prior to January,

2001.

Dated: December 1, 2000.

Anna Wolgast,

Acting General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–31333 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6613–4]

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 November 27, 2000

Through December 1, 2000 Pursuant

to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 000416, DRAFT EIS, SFW, CA,

Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation

Plan, Issuance of an Incidental Take

Permit, To Protect, Conserve and

Enhance Fish, Wildlife and Plants and

their Habitat, Natomas Basin,

Sacramento County, CA, Due:

February 6, 2001, Contact: Vickie

Campbell (916) 414–6600.

EIS No. 000417, DRAFT EIS, NPS, GA,

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, Due: April 9, 2001, Contact:

Arthur Frederick (912) 882–4336.

EIS No. 000418, FINAL EIS, AFS, MN,

Little East Creek Fuel Reduction

Project, Plan to Grant Access Across

Federal Land to Non-Federal

Landowners, Implementation,

LaCroix Ranger District, Superior