Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices 29797

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6988–9]

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request; Soil

Ingestion Research Study

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: Soil Ingestion Research Study

(EPA ICR Number 1965.01). 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 July 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing

EPA ICR No. 1965.01 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. 1965.01. For technical questions

about the ICR contact Larry J. Zaragoza

(703–603–8867).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Soil

Ingestion Research Study (EPA ICR No.

1965.01). This is a new collection.

Abstract: This ICR supports research

to examine the amount of soil ingested.

Soil is ingested in two ways, incidental

ingestion from everyday hand to mouth

activity and ingestion resulting from

inhaled particles of soil that are

deposited in upper and middle

respiratory tract and swallowed. The

ingestion of soil is important because

contaminated soils from a hazardous

waste site poses risks to individuals

exposed to contaminated soil. This

research should help any environmental

program concerned with contaminated

soils but is specifically being sponsored

by Superfund. This research will

evaluate ingestion by comparing the

amount of trace metals that are ingested

in food with the amount of metals that

are excreted, any amount in excess of

the ingested trace metals is attributed to

incidental soil ingestion. Because of the

possibility of trace metal ingestion from

a variety of sources (like food and

toothpaste), a questionnaire to identify

and characterize sources of trace metals

that can affect daily variation in trace

metals is an important part of the

experimental design of these studies.

About 20 study volunteers are paid and

are expected to participate in this study

for about two weeks. Each night the

study participants would participate in

a questionnaire that will later be used to

help interpret daily variations in trace

metals.

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

November 21, 2000 (65 FR 69936); no

written comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public

reporting and record keeping burden for

this collection of information is

estimated to average 5 minutes 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: About

20 paid volunteers will be involved in

responding to this collection as part of

a paid research study.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20

responses.

Frequency of Response: Daily for 2

weeks.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:

20 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital,

O&M 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. 1965.01 in

any correspondence.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 01–13842 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[Region II Docket No. NJ45–222, FRL–6990–

3]

Adequacy Status of the Submitted

2002, 2005 and 2007 Rate of Progress

and Updated Attainment

Demonstration Budgets for the Ozone

National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Transportation

Conformity Purposes for the New

Jersey Severe Ozone Nonattainment

Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is

notifying the public that we have found

that the motor vehicle emissions

budgets for volatile organic compounds

and nitrogen oxides in the submitted

rate of progress state implementation

plan (SIP) for the New Jersey severe

nonattainment areas to be adequate for

conformity purposes. On March 2, 1999,

the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that

submitted state implementation plan

budgets cannot be used for conformity

determinations until EPA has

affirmatively found them adequate. As a

result of our finding, the New Jersey

portions of the New York-New JerseyConnecticut severe ozone

nonattainment area can use the motor

vehicle emissions budgets of volatile

organic compounds and nitrogen oxides

for 2002, 2005 and 2007 from the

submitted rate of progress SIP for future

conformity determinations. These

budgets also apply to the Warren

County marginal nonattainment area.

The New Jersey portions of the

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

severe ozone nonattainment areas can

use the motor vehicle emissions budgets

of volatile organic compounds and

nitrogen oxides for 2002 and 2005 from

29798 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Notices

the submitted Rate of Progress SIP for

future conformity determinations. These

budgets also apply to the Atlantic City

moderate ozone nonattainment area.

DATES: This finding is effective June 18,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melanie A. Zeman, Mobile Source

Team, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4022, email address: zeman.melanie@epa.gov.

The finding and the response to

comments will be available at EPA’s

conformity website: http://

www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there,

click on the ‘‘Conformity’’ button, then

look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP

Submissions for Conformity’’).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Today’s notice is simply an

announcement of a finding that we have

already made. EPA Region 2 sent a letter

to the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection on May 23,

2001 stating that the motor vehicle

emissions budgets in the submitted rate

of progress plan (dated April 11, 2001)

for the New Jersey portions of the New

York-New Jersey-Connecticut and

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

severe nonattainment areas are adequate

for conformity purposes. This finding

will also be announced on EPA’s

conformity website: http://

www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there,

click on the ‘‘Conformity’’ button, then

look for ‘‘Adequacy Review of SIP

Submissions for Conformity’’).

Transportation conformity is required

by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act.

EPA’s conformity rule requires that

transportation plans, programs, and

projects conform to state air quality

implementation plans (SIPs) and

establishes the criteria and procedures

for determining whether or not they do.

Conformity to a SIP means that

transportation activities will not

produce new air quality violations,

worsen existing violations, or delay

timely attainment of the national

ambient air quality standards.

The criteria by which we determine

whether a SIP’s motor vehicle emission

budgets are adequate for conformity

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR

93.118(e)(4). Please note that an

adequacy review is separate from EPA’s

completeness review, and it also should

not be used to prejudge EPA’s ultimate

approval of the SIP. Even if we find a

budget adequate, the SIP could later be

disapproved.

We’ve described our process for

determining the adequacy of submitted

SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999

memo titled ‘‘Conformity Guidance on

Implementation of March 2, 1999

Conformity Court Decision’’). We

followed this guidance in making our

adequacy determination.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: May 23, 2001.

Kathleen C. Callahan,

Acting Regional Administrator Region 2.

[FR Doc. 01–13780 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6618–6]

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–G36152–NM Rating

LO, Santa Fe National Forest, Santa Fe

Municipal Watershed Project, Servere

Crown Fire Reduction and Sustainable

Forest and Watershed Conditions

Restoration, Implementation, Pecos

Wilderness to Cochitti Lake, Santa Fe

National Forest, Santa Fe County, NM.

Summary

EPA has no objections to the selection

of the preferred alternative.

ERP No. D–BIA–K60031–NV Rating

EC2, Moapa Paiute Energy Center/

Associated Facilities Construction,

Operation and Maintenance of a 760-

Megawatt (MW) Baseload Natural GasFired Combined Cycle Power Plant,

Land Lease and Water Use Approval, R–

O–W Grants, Temporary Use, COE

Section 10/404 and EPA NPDES

Permits, Moapa River Indian

Reservation and BLM Lands, Clark

County, NY.

Summary

EPA expressed concerns, and

requested additional information

regarding: lack of evaluation for

ressonable alternatives, impacts to

groundwater resources, air quality

impacts, and endangered species act

compliance.

ERP No. D–BOP–G81010–LA Rating

LO, Pollock Federal Correctional

Institution, Construction and Operation,

near Town of Pollock, Grant Parish, LA.

Summary

EPA expressed no objection to the

project proposal.

ERP No. D–BOP–K80043–AZ Rating

EC2, Southern Arizona Federal

Correctional Facility, Construction and

Operation, Pima and Yuma Counties,

AZ.

Summary

EPA expressed concerns regarding the

lack of detail relating to specific site

location information and potential

impacts of the prison industry

component of the project. EPA

requested additional information on

those areas, and also requested

additional analysis of the ‘‘no action’

alternative.

ERP No. D–IBR–J39029–SD Rating

EC2, Angostura Unit—(Dam, Reservoir

and Irrigation Facilities) Renewal of a

Long-Term Water Service Contract,

Cheyenne River Basin, Pine Ridge

Reservation, Bismarck County, SD.

Summary

EPA expressed environmental

concerns over the level of analysis of

direct and indirect impacts, and the lack

of information regarding the cumulative

effects of the Angostura project and the

means to mitigate the significant

impacts of each alternative.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–K61145–CA

Programmatic EIS—Ansel Adams, John

Muir and Dinkey Lakes Wildernesses,

Proposed New Management Direction,

Amending the Land and Resource

Management Plans for the Inyo and

Sierra National Forests, Implementation,

Inyo, Madera, Mono and Fresno

Counties, CA.

Summary

No formal comment letter was sent to

the preparing agency.

ERP No. F–IBR–L28008–ID Arrowrock

Dam Outlet Works Rehabilitation,

Construction and Operation, To Remove

10 Lower Level Ensign Valves and

Replace with 10 Clamshell Gates, Boise

River, City of Boise, ID.

Summary

EPA is pleased that the final EIS

includes a modification from the draft

EIS which reduces the likelihood of