67088 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 

EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, 

after appearing in the Federal Register 

when approved, are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9, and are displayed either by 

publication in the Federal Register or 

by other appropriate means, such as on 

the related collection instrument or 

form, if applicable. The display of OMB 

control numbers in certain EPA 

regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR 

part 9. 

Abstract: This ICR was developed 

specifically for secondary aluminum 

production facilities and has been 

tailored to the processes at secondary 

aluminum production facilities. EPA 

intends to provide the survey in 

electronic format. The survey will be 

sent to all facilities identified as owning 

or operating secondary aluminum 

production facilities through 

information available to the Agency. 

Information is requested from 

approximately 400 secondary aluminum 

production facilities on general facility 

information, process information, 

emission control devices used at the 

facilities and their basic design and 

operating features, quantity of air 

emissions, throughput and capacity of 

process units. An update of the 2005 

National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment/ 

National Emissions Inventory data sets 

and more specific information needed 

for further rulemaking would be derived 

from the ICR. This information is 

necessary for EPA to adequately 

characterize residual risk at these 

facilities, and to develop standards for 

new and existing secondary aluminum 

production facilities under section 112 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

EPA is charged, under section 112 of 

the CAA, with developing national 

emission standards for 189 listed 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (Secondary Aluminum 

MACT) standard (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart RRR) is a national emission 

standard for HAP developed under the 

authority of section 112(d) of the CAA. 

EPA is required to review each MACT 

standard and revise them ‘‘as necessary 

(taking into account developments in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies)’’ no less frequently than 

every eight years. These reviews are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘technology 

reviews.’’ In addition, EPA is required to 

assess the risk remaining (residual risk) 

after implementation of the MACT 

standard and promulgate more stringent 

standards if they are necessary to 

protect public health. Under EPA’s RTR 

program, EPA is addressing these two 

requirements concurrently. EPA is 

updating the information they currently 

possess and filling identified data gaps 

in that information in order to provide 

a thorough basis for the RTR efforts. The 

data collection effort will gather 

additional information to allow 

comprehensive and technically sound 

analyses that will form the basis for 

future rulemaking decisions. Responses 

to the ICR are mandatory under the 

authority of section 114 of the CAA. 

Burden Statement: The one time 

public reporting burden for the 

collection of this information is 

estimated to average 91 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. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 

Owners or operators of secondary 

aluminum production facilities. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

400 facilities. 

Frequency of Response: One time. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

36,248. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$3,429,747, which includes $1,200 in 

operation and maintenance costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: This is a 

new collection. 

Dated: October 26, 2010. 

John Moses, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27508 Filed 10–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0818; FRL–9218–6] 

Clean Water Act (CWA) and Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Common 

Aquatic Life Effects Assessment for 

Pesticides Using Available Data 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of national meeting and 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: EPA will conduct a national 

stakeholders meeting to solicit input on 

methods being evaluated by the Office 

of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the 

Office of Water (OW), with the support 

of the Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) to develop common 

characterizations of effects from 

pesticides on fish, other aquatic 

organisms, and aquatic plants in aquatic 

ecosystems. The national meeting will 

be held in Washington, DC, December 1, 

2010. EPA has developed a set of draft 

white papers that explore: (1) The use 

of various tools to estimate aquatic 

toxicity data; (2) approaches for deriving 

community level benchmarks; and (3) 

procedures for better integrating plant 

effects data into community level 

assessments. EPA is soliciting 

stakeholder input on the tools and 

approaches presented in the draft white 

papers via public comment and at the 

national meeting. 

DATES: The national stakeholders 

meeting will be held December 1, 2010; 

the agency must receive written requests 

(via e-mail or US Mail to one of the 

points of contact listed below) to deliver 

verbal comments at the National 

Stakeholder prior to the meeting on 

December 1, 2010. Written comments 

may be submitted to the docket (see 

instructions below) anytime between 

November 1, 2010 and prior to the close 

of the docket on January 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA will hold a national 

stakeholders meeting at the following 

address: USEPA East (EPA East) [Old 

ICC Building], 1201 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, 

Room # 1153 EPA East. 

To request accommodation of a 

disability, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON

CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days 

prior to the meeting, to give EPA as 

much time as possible to process your 

request. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by the Docket ID: EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0818, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web Site: 

owdocket@epa.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the owdocket@epa.gov. 

• E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0818 in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: US Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) 

Water Docket, MC 4101T,1200 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 67089 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Public 

Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Beaman, Health and Ecological 

Criteria Division (4304T), Office of 

Water, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 202– 

566–0420; beaman.joe@epa.gov. 

Mark Corbin, Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division (7507P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, U.S. EPA, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; 703–605–0033; 

corbin.mark@epa.gov 

Cindy Roberts, Office of Science 

Policy (8104R), Office of Research and 

Development, U.S. EPA, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; 202–564–1999; 

roberts.cindy@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Instructions: All submissions 

received must include the agency name 

and docket number for this notice. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided. 

B. Meeting: This meeting is open to 

the public; registration is not required 

for attending this meeting. Seats will be 

available on a first come, first served 

basis. 

C. Does this Action Apply to Me? This 

action is directed to the public in 

general, and may be of interest to a wide 

range of stakeholders, including 

environmental, water resources 

professionals, and agricultural 

advocates, the chemical industry, 

pesticide users, and members of the 

public interested in the sale, 

distribution, or use of pesticides. Since 

others also may be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities that may be affected 

by this action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

D. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0818. 

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 Office of 

Water’s (OW) Public Reading Room, 

Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. The hours of operation of this 

Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (202) 566– 

2426. 

Alternatively, the documents for this 

meeting as well as materials related to 

this action that have been previously 

developed can be found on the EPA 

Web site: Office of Water link: http:// 

www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ 

aqlife/cem.html Office of Pesticide 

Programs link: http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppefed1/ 

cwa_fifra_effects_methodology/. 

II. Background 

Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) requires EPA to develop, 

publish, and from time to time, revise 

criteria for water quality that accurately 

reflect the latest scientific knowledge. 

Water quality criteria are scientifically 

derived numeric values that measure 

the level beyond which pollutants in 

ambient water are expected to have 

deleterious effects on aquatic life or 

human health. Water quality criteria 

developed under Section 304(a) are 

based solely on data and scientific 

judgments on the relationship between 

pollutant concentrations and 

environmental and human health 

effects. Section 304(a) criteria do not 

reflect consideration of economic 

impacts or the technological feasibility 

of meeting the chemical concentrations 

in ambient water. 

Section 304(a) criteria provide 

guidance to states and authorized tribes 

in adopting water quality standards that 

ultimately provide the basis for 

controlling discharges or releases of 

pollutants. The criteria also provide 

guidance to EPA when promulgating 

federal regulations under Section 303(c), 

when such action is necessary. Under 

the CWA and its implementing 

regulations, states and authorized tribes 

adopt water quality criteria to support 

designated uses (e.g., aquatic life, public 

water supply, recreational use). EPA’s 

recommended criteria do not impose 

legally binding requirements. States and 

authorized tribes have the discretion to 

adopt, where appropriate, other water 

quality criteria based on scientifically 

defensible approaches that differ from 

EPA’s recommended criteria. 

FIFRA requires that all pesticides 

used in the U.S. be registered by EPA 

and thus ensures federal control of 

distribution, sale, and use of pesticides. 

Registration assures that pesticides will 

be properly labeled and that, if used in 

accordance with labeled specifications, 

will not cause unreasonable adverse 

effects on human health and the 

environment. FIFRA ecological risk 

assessments quantitatively evaluate 

reduced survival of aquatic animals 

from direct acute exposures and 

survival, growth, and reproductive 

impairment for aquatic animals from 

direct chronic exposures. Assessments 

for aquatic plants focus on growth rates 

and biomass (reproduction) 

measurements. Effects assessments are 

an important component of a FIFRA risk 

assessment. 

For FIFRA ecological effects 

assessments, EPA reviews toxicity data 

provided by the registrant as required by 

regulation, as well as data from public 

sources obtained from EPA’s ECOTOX 

database. Current testing requirements 

for aquatic organisms include toxicity 

studies containing information on 

survival, reproduction, and growth 

endpoints for freshwater and estuarine/ 

marine animals and biomass and growth 

endpoints for aquatic plants. These test 

requirements are defined for each 

chemical class by use category in title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Part 158. Studies are performed on 

laboratory test organisms in the 

following broad taxonomic groupings: 

freshwater fish and invertebrates, 

estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, 

and aquatic plants. For screening-level 

assessments, OPP’s effects assessments 

are based on the lowest acute and 

chronic toxicity values from the most 

sensitive species tested in acceptable 

studies. More refined assessments may 

use the full species sensitivity 

distribution for a given taxon or other 

toxicity endpoints, as for the variability 

and uncertainty of the data 

(probabilistic approaches). The ‘‘OPP 

Aquatic Benchmarks’’ is a web site 

developed by OPP that contains the 

aquatic toxicity endpoints used in EPA 

pesticide risk assessments. (http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/ 

aquatic_life_benchmarks.htm). 

OPP toxicity benchmarks and OW 

AWQC are both developed with high 

quality data pursuant to parallel but 

somewhat different rigorously peerreviewed assessment methodologies. 

The opportunity being addressed by 

EPA is how best to build on the 

substantial high quality science 

developed under both programs to 

develop a consistent and common set of 

effects characterization methods that 

integrates these approaches for 

regulators to use in different programs at 

both the Federal and State level. 

Stakeholders have identified a need for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

67090 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 2010 / Notices 

consistent and timely federal input that 

will allow EPA, states, tribes, and the 

public to gauge whether pesticides 

represent a concern for aquatic life, for 

example, based on water monitoring 

results. To address these concerns, the 

Agency has begun a process to explore 

how to build on the high quality science 

in both OW and OPP to develop 

additional tools and approaches to 

support consistent and common effects 

characterizations using the best 

available information. If successful, this 

common tiered effects characterization 

methodology and resultant advisory 

values would allow Federal and State 

risk managers to make environmentally 

protective and scientifically defensible, 

timely decisions about chemicals that 

may be found in ambient water in a 

consistent manner while meeting the 

mandates of both CWA and FIFRA. 

A scoping document was published in 

April 2009, http://www.epa.gov/ 

oppefed1/ 

cwa_fifra_effects_methodology/ 

scope.html that described this effort in 

more detail and invited public 

participation in our collective efforts. 

Following through on this invitation, 6 

regional stakeholders meetings where 

held in January 2010. The feedback 

received from stakeholders assisted EPA 

in crafting three draft white papers. 

Now, a national stakeholders meeting is 

being planned for October 29, 2010 to 

solicit input on the Agency’s draft white 

papers that address the following topics: 

(1) The use of various tools to 

estimate aquatic toxicity data; 

(2) approaches for deriving 

community level benchmarks; and 

(3) procedures for better integrating 

plant effects data into community level 

assessments. 

These white papers also describe how 

the potential new tools, methods, and 

analytical approaches that may be used 

by the Agency, state pesticide and water 

quality agencies, and other stakeholders 

to gauge whether pesticides represent a 

concern for aquatic life. Following this 

meeting, the Agency plans to revise the 

white papers, based on public 

comments and feedback from the 

stakeholders. The white papers will 

then be reviewed by EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board in summer 2011. 

For more information about water 

quality criteria and Water Quality 

Standards, refer to the following: Water 

Quality Standards Handbook (EPA 823– 

B94–005a); Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM), (63 FR 

36742); Water Quality Criteria and 

Standards Plan—Priorities for the 

Future (EPA 822–R–98–003); Guidelines 

and Methodologies Used in the 

Preparation of Health Effects 

Assessment Chapters of the Consent 

Decree Water Criteria Documents (45 FR 

79347); Methodology for Deriving 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Human Health (2000), 

EPA–822–B–00–004); Guidelines for 

Deriving Numerical National Water 

Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses 

(EPA 822/R–85–100); National Strategy 

for the Development of Regional 

Nutrient Criteria (EPA 822–R–98–002); 

and EPA Review and Approval of State 

and Tribal Water Quality Standards (65 

FR 24641). You can find these 

publications through EPA’s National 

Service Center for Environmental 

Publications (NSCEP, previously NCEPI) 

or on the Office of Science and 

Technology’s home page (http:// 

www.epa.gov/waterscience). 

For more information about the OPP 

Ecological Exposure Assessment Process 

under FIFRA, refer to the following: 

Overview of the Ecological Risk 

Assessment Process in the Office of 

Pesticide Programs, which describes 

how pesticide data are used in 

ecological risk assessments (http:// 

www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/

consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf). The 

data requirements for aquatic non-target 

plants and animals for pesticides are 

described in title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, revised July 1, 

2008 (158.660 Non-target Plant 

Protection Data Requirements). The 

required procedures for conducting the 

studies are described in OPPTS 

Harmonized Test Guidelines. Series 850 

Ecological Effects Test Guidelines— 

Public Drafts (http://www.epa.gov/

opptsfrs/publications/

OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_

Effects_Test_Guidelines/Drafts/). 

Information on procedures used to 

evaluate these studies are described in: 

Standard Evaluation Protocols, the 

guidance document entitled the 

Rejection Rate Analysis: Ecological 

Effects (EPA 738–R–94–035), and in the 

OPP Overview Document. Public 

literature is accessed by OPP through 

EPA’s ECOTOX database (http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov.ecotox/). The ‘‘OPP 

Aquatic Benchmarks,’’ a Web site 

developed by OPP, contains the aquatic 

toxicity endpoints used in pesticide 

assessments (http://www.epa.gov/

oppefed1ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_

benchmarks.htm). 

III. What type of comments does EPA 

want to receive? 

EPA would like the public to 

comment on the following: 

1. The data, tools, and methods 

presented in the white papers; 

2. Alternate tools or methods that EPA 

should consider for extrapolating or 

estimating aquatic toxicity data; 

3. Alternate methods EPA should 

consider for developing community 

level benchmarks or aquatic life 

screening values when minimum data 

requirements for national recommended 

aquatic life criteria are not met; 

4. The types of values that are used 

by states and/or regions for protecting 

aquatic life in the absence of ambient 

water quality criteria; and 

5. Approaches to establishing plantbased criteria, or methods to better 

incorporate plant effects data in 

community level benchmarks. 

Dated: September 27, 2010. 

Ephraim S. King, 

Director, Office of Science and Technology, 

Office of Water. 

Dated: September 29, 2010. 

Steve Bradbury, 

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Dated: September 29, 2010. 

Fred Hauchman, 

Director, Office of Science Policy, Office of 

Research and Development. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27289 Filed 10–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Federal Advisory Committee Act; 

Technological Advisory Council 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, this 

notice advises interested persons that 

the Federal Communications 

Commission’s (FCC) Technological 

Advisory Council will hold a meeting 

on Thursday, November 4, 2010 in the 

Commission Meeting Room, from 1 p.m. 

to 4 p.m. at the Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. 

DATES: November 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Walter Johnston, Chief, Electromagnetic 

Compatibility Division, 202–418–0807; 

Walter.Johnston@FCC.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At this 

meeting, the overall objectives of the 

Technological Advisory Council (TAC) 

will be described and discussion on the 

working methods of the TAC will be 

held. The FCC will attempt to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES