33682 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 122 / Monday, June 25, 2001 / Notices

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicit

comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the agency’s estimate of

the burden of the proposed collection of

information, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g. permitting

electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The EPA estimates

that the total annual respondent burden

for all activities covered in this ICR is

approximately 4720 hours and a cost of

approximately $88,000. These estimates

are based on a projected receipt of 5

major applications per year with a

weighted average burden of 860 hours

per application, and an estimated 14

minor applications per year with a

weighted average burden of 30 hours

each. However, it should be noted that

actual applications range widely in

content and extent. Accordingly, the

individual respondent burden for a

particular application response may

differ substantially from these weighted

average burden estimates. The weighted

average cost burden estimate includes

start up costs, the total cost of capital

equipment annualized over its expected

useful life, operation and maintenance,

and purchase of services.

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.

Dated: June 14, 2001.

Jewell F. Morris,

Acting Director, National Exposure Research

Laboratory.

[FR Doc. 01–15881 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–7000–4]

Proposed Settlement Agreement,

Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

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

agreement that was filed with the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

on May 25, 2001, to address a lawsuit

filed by the Arizona Mining Association

(AMA). AMA filed a petition for review

pursuant to section 307(b) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7607(b) challenging one of EPA’s

bases for granting interim, rather than

full, approval of the Arizona title V

operating permits program. EPA based

its interim approval in part on

overbroad provisions addressing excess

emissions. Thus, EPA provided that to

receive full approval, the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ) would need, among other

corrections, to modify the excess

emissions provisions to be consistent

with EPA’s title V program regulations

(40 CFR part 70). Arizona Mining

Association v. EPA, No. 97–70007

(Ninth Cir.).

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed settlement agreement must be

received by July 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Ginger Vagenas, Permits

Office (Air-3), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105. (415) 744–1252. Copies of the

proposed settlement agreement are

available from Ms. Vagenas. A copy of

the proposed settlement agreement was

filed with the Clerk of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

on May 25, 2001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

title V of the CAA, EPA promulgated

regulations specifying the requirements

for state operating permit programs.

ADEQ submitted its program to EPA for

approval on November 15, 1993. On

October 30, 1996, pursuant to section

502(g)of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7661a(g),

EPA granted interim approval of

ADEQ’s title V permitting program,

citing several corrections that ADEQ

would have to make before EPA could

grant full approval. Included in that list

was a requirement that ADEQ revise its

excess emissions provisions to be

consistent with those set out in EPA’s

operating permit regulations (40 CFR

part 70). AMA objected and sought

review of this aspect of EPA’s final

action.

The proposed settlement agreement

provides that, within 9 months of

ADEQ’s submission of its revised excess

emissions rule in the form of a state

implementation plan (SIP) revision,

EPA will take final action on this

submission. Upon execution of this

settlement agreement, EPA and AMA

will file a joint motion with the Court

to stay all proceedings pending EPA’s

final action on the ADEQ SIP revision.

When EPA has taken final action on the

SIP revision, the Parties will jointly

move to dismiss the petition with

prejudice. AMA agrees to promptly

petition ADEQ to submit a revision to

its title V program removing Rule 310 if

EPA takes final action to approve Rule

310 into the SIP.

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: June 12, 2001.

Richard B. Ossias,

Acting Associate General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–15883 Filed 6–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P