### 8335 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2010 / Notices

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 304 hours 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 which have subsequently changed; 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 the Agency’s estimate, which is only briefly summarized here. Based on the Agency’s knowledge of the number of title V permits issued since 1997 and the implementation of part 64 through permit renewals, the expected impact of the CAM program for the 3 years from October 1, 2010 until September 30, 2013 is about 7.4 million hours annually. The CAM rule will incur an average annual cost of about $263.8 million in 2008 dollars. There are no annualized capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. EPA assumes that any such equipment needed by sources to comply with part 64 would be purchased as part of a monitoring equipment purchase. Therefore, O&M costs for operating such capital equipment is not separately estimated.

The CAM program burden for source owners or operators means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide monitoring 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. The CAM program potentially affects about 24,000 pollutant-specific emissions units
nationwide. The annual burden for source owners or operators is about 7.4million hours for these pollutantspecific emissions units.

During the review period, permitting
authorities will review CAM rule
submittals from source owners or operators whose permits have already been issued and are renewing those permits as the 5-year permit terms expire. Permitting authorities will also be interacting with the source owners or operators in addressing the CAM in semi-annual monitoring reports and reporting CAM data as necessary. We
estimate the annual CAM burden to permitting authorities to total about 65,000 hours and about $3.5 million. Burden means the sum of the time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.

The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency’s estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 24,000 pollutant specific
emissions units.

Frequency of response: Semi-annual and annual reports, plus every 5 years at permit renewal.

Estimated total annual burden hours:
7.4 million hours.

Estimated average annual costs: $263.8 million. This includes annual labor costs for sources and permitting authorities and no capital or O&M costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

There is an increase of 4.3 million hours in the total estimated respondent annual burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects the significant increase in number of respondents resulting from the implementation of the rule through operating permit renewals.

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. At that time, 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**

.

Dated: January 29, 2010.
Steve Fruh, Acting Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards.

[FR Doc. 2010–3683 Filed 2–23–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**[FRL–8808–1]**

**Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of**  **Several Currently Approved Collections; Comment Request** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit requests to renew several currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICRs are specifically identified in this document by their corresponding titles, EPA ICR numbers, OMB Control numbers, and related docket identification (ID) numbers. Before submitting these ICRs to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
information collection activities.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2010.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by the docket ID number for the corresponding ICR as identified in this document, by one of the following
methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Mail : Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Facility’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The


### 8336 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2010 / Notices

Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

Instructions : Direct your comments to the docket ID number for the corresponding ICR as identified in this document. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be
made available on-line at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwiseprotected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an

‘‘ anonymous access ’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.

Docket : All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available

in http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the
electronic docket at http:// www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703) 305–5805.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For questions regarding EPA Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0885: Rame Cromwell, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; telephone number: (703) 308–9068; fax number: (703) 305–5884; email address: cromwell.rame@epa.gov

.

For questions regarding EPA Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPP–2009–0886: Cameo Smoot, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; telephone number: (703) 305–5454; fax number: (703) 305–5884; email address: smoot.cameo@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. 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 collection of information is 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 burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected.

4. 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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your

comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific examples.

2. Describe any assumptions that you
used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under **DATES**

.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date,
and Federal Register citation.

III. What Do I Need to Know About
PRA?

An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information subject to PRA approval unless it displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on
the related collection instruments or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in a list at 40
CFR 9.1.

Under 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.
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 which have subsequently changed; 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.

IV. Which ICRs Are Being Renewed?

EPA is planning to submit a number of currently approved ICRs to OMB for review and approval under PRA. In addition to specifically identifying the ICRs by title and corresponding ICR, OMB and docket ID numbers, this unit provides a brief summary of the information collection activity and the Agency’s estimated burden. The Supporting Statement for each ICR, a


### 8337 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2010 / Notices

copy of which is available in the corresponding docket, provides a more detailed explanation.

A. Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPP–

2009–0885

Title : Pesticide Registration Fee
Waivers.

ICR numbers : EPA ICR No. 2147.04, OMB Control No. 2070–0167.

ICR status : The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on October 31,

2010.

Affected entities : Entities potentially affected by this ICR include pesticide registrants seeking a waiver or exemption of fees under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA). The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes include 325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing), 32518 (other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing), and 32519 (other basic organic chemical manufacturing).

Abstract : This information collection will allow EPA to process requests for waivers and exemptions of fees under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act of 2007 (PRIA 2) which
established section 33 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The ICR covers the
collection activities associated with requesting a fee waiver or exemption and involves requesters submitting a waiver or exemption request to provide information to demonstrate eligibility for the waiver or exemption and certification of eligibility. Waivers are
available for small businesses and minor uses and exemptions are available for minor uses and actions solely associated with the Inter-Regional Research Project Number 4 (IR–4). State and Federal agencies are exempt from the payment of fees. This ICR provides burden hour
and labor cost estimates for both applicants for fee waivers and EPA employees who process and approve or deny waiver requests.

Burden statement : The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 12 to 37 hours per response depending upon the type (A, B, or C) of respondent. The ICR, a copy of which is available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly
summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondent requests : 1,800.

Frequency of response : As needed. Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent : 1.

Estimated total annual burden hours : 5,611 hours. Estimated total annual costs : $335,328.

Changes in the estimates from the last approval : The renewal of this ICR will result in an overall decrease of 2,757 hours in the total estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR. This decrease reflects a shift in both the number and type of waiver requests submitted. The average estimated burden per response has not changed. However, the total number of responses per year decreased from 389 to 293. In addition, there was a shift in the distribution of responses to the least-burdensome type, resulting in the
lower total estimated burden. This change is an adjustment.

B. Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPP–

2009–0886

Title : Submission of Unreasonable
Adverse Effects Information under FIFRA Section 6(a)(2).

ICR numbers : EPA ICR No. 1204.11, OMB Control No. 2070–0039.

ICR status : The approval for this ICR is scheduled to expire on October 31,

2010.

Affected entities : Entities potentially affected by this ICR include anyone who holds or ever held a registration for a pesticide product issued under FIFRA section 3 or section 24(c). The NAICS code is 325320 (pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing).

Abstract : This ICR is a proposed renewal of an existing ICR that is currently approved by OMB and is due to expire October 31, 2010. Section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA requires pesticide registrants to submit information to the Agency which may be relevant to the balancing of the risks and benefits of a pesticide product.

The statute requires the registrant to submit any factual information that it acquires regarding adverse effects associated with its pesticidal products, and it is up to the Agency to determine
whether or not that factual information
constitutes an unreasonable adverse
effect. In order to limit the amount of less meaningful information that might be submitted to the Agency, EPA has limited the scope of factual information that the registrant must submit. The Agency’s regulations at 40 CFR 159 provide a detailed description of the reporting obligations of registrants under FIFRA section 6(a)(2).

As expected, implementation of the 1998 final regulations (June 19, 1998; 63 FR 33580) initially resulted in an
increase in the number of incident reports submitted annually. That was
assumed to be the result of increased awareness and understanding on the part of pesticide registrants of their reporting responsibilities under FIFRA section 6(a)(2). After the first year under the regulations, incident reporting leveled off and has remained generally consistent. Study submissions, on the other hand, have gradually decreased as the pesticide re-registration program
data call-in activities wound down. For the purposes of this renewal the estimate for study and incident submissions have been averaged for the three fiscal years 2006–2008.

Burden statement : The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average a range of 2.1 hours to 3.5 hours per response. The ICR, a copy of which is available in the docket, provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly
summarized here:

Estimated total number of potential respondents : 1,733.

Frequency of response : As needed. Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent : For submission of studies less than 1. Submission of incidents may range from 1 to 40, however, incidents are usually reported as aggregate statistics.

Estimated total annual burden hours : 203,236 hours.

Estimated total annual costs : $11,793,027.

Changes in the estimates from the last approval : The renewal of this ICR will result in an overall increase of 35,920 hours in the total estimated respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR. Total burden hour
estimates associated with studies are
reduced because the estimated number of study submissions is reduced from
240 to 183 studies. Burden estimates
associated with the number of incident reports, however, are increased because
of the increased volume of incident reporting (31%). In addition, an increase in the number of registrants of active products (1,733 versus 1,720) results in the need for additional employees to be trained. Overall, considering the net
effect of the decrease in studies and the
increase in incidents as well as the change in employee training, the total respondent burden hours increased from 167,316 to 203,236.

V. What is the Next Step in the Process
for These ICRs?

EPA will consider the comments
received and amend the individual ICRs as appropriate. The final ICR packages
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 these ICRs to OMB and


### 8338 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2010 / Notices

the opportunity for the public to submit
additional comments for OMB consideration. If you have any questions about any of these ICRs or the approval process in general, please contact the people listed under **FOR FURTHER**

**INFORMATION CONTACT**

. List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 17, 2010.
James Jones, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 2010–3694 Filed 2–23–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–S**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**[FRL–9117–7]**

**EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office Notification of a Meeting of the**  **Ecological Effects Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on Clean Air**  **Compliance Analysis (Council)**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Ecological Effects Subcommittee (EES) of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council). The EES, supplemented with additional members from the Science Advisory Board and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, will review draft documents regarding ecological effects of modeled air quality scenarios developed tosupport the Second Section 812 BenefitCost Analysis of the Clean Air Act. The assessment of ecological effects has been developed in support of the Office of
Air and Radiation’s Second Section 812 Prospective Analysis of the benefits and
costs of the Clean Air Act.

**DATES :**  The EES augmented with additional experts will meet on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 and Wednesday, March 10, 2010, beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending no later than 5 p.m. (Eastern Time), each day.

**ADDRESSES :**  The public meeting will be
held at the SAB Conference Center at 1025 F Street, NW., Suite 3700, Washington, DC 20004.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Members of the public who wish to
obtain further information about this meeting may contact Ms. Stephanie Sanzone, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (1400F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail: (202) 343–9697

or at sanzone.stephanie@epa.gov.
General information about the Council may be found on the Council Web site

at: http://www.epa.gov/ advisorycouncilcaa.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Background: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C., App. 2 (FACA), notice is hereby given that the Ecological Effects Subcommittee (EES) of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis (Council), augmented with additional experts, will hold a public meeting to evaluate draft documents regarding ecological effects of modeled air quality scenarios developed to support the Second Section 812 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the
Clean Air Act. The Council was established in 1991 pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7612) to provide advice,
information and recommendations on technical and economic aspects of analyses and reports EPA prepares on the impacts of the CAA on the public health, economy, and environment of
the United States. The Council is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered under FACA. The EES will provide advice through the Council and will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Pursuant to Section 812 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), EPA conducts periodic studies to assess
benefits and costs of the EPA’s regulatory actions under the Clean Air Act. The Council has provided advice on an EPA retrospective study published in 1997 and an EPA prospective study completed in 1999. EPA initiated a second prospective study to evaluate the benefits and costs of EPA Clean Air programs for years 1990–2020. The Council has previously provided advice on the analytical blueprint for this study. EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is now nearing completion of the analytical work for the second prospective study.

At the March 9 and 10, 2010 meeting,
the EES will review draft technical documents pertaining to ecological effects associated with air quality scenarios developed using the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model for seven emissions scenarios: a 1990 baseline simulation; and simulations for 2000, 2010 and
2020 with and without the CAAA. The draft documents compare simulated pollutant exposures with the distribution of sensitive ecosystems in the United States to assess ecosystems at risk from acidic deposition, total nitrogen deposition, and tropospheric ozone concentrations. In addition, the draft documents present case studies on benefits of the CAAA for recreation fishing and the timber industry in the Adirondack Region of New York State. Chapter 4 of the draft Benefits Analyses to Support the Second Section 812 Benefit-Cost Analysis describes the estimation of the physical effects of the air quality scenarios for ozone on agriculture and commercial forestry.

OAR is requesting that the EES review the data choices, methodological choices for analyzing the data, and the overall validity and utility of the estimated changes in ecological effectsfrom air pollution between the withCAAA90 and without-CAAA90 scenarios. The following documents are provided to the EES: (1) Effects of Air Pollutants on Ecological Resources: Literature Review and Case Studies. Draft Report, February 2010. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., for James DeMocker, EPA Office of Policy Analysis and Review; and (2) Benefits Analyses to Support the Second Section 812 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Clean Air Act, Draft. Chapter 4: Agricultural and Forest Productivity Benefits. Draft Report, February 2010. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Inc., for the EPA Office of Air and Radiation.

Technical Contacts: The Office of Air and Radiation technical contact for the Second Section 812 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Clean Air Act is Mr. Jim DeMocker at (202) 564–1673 or democker.jim@epa.gov.

Availability of Meeting Materials: EPA draft documents provided to the EES are
available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/ sect812/prospective2.html.

The meeting agenda for March 9 and 10, 2010 and any background materials will be posted on the Council Web site http://www.epa.gov/advisorycouncilcaa prior to the meeting.

Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the public may
submit relevant written information on the group conducting the activity or
written or oral information for the EES to consider on the topics of this advisory activity. Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes per speaker, with no more than one hour for all speakers. Interested parties should contact Ms. Sanzone at the contact information provided above by March 2, 2010, to be placed on the public speaker list for the March 9 and