Attachment 7: Federal Register Notices

a) First Federal Register Notice [EPA-HQ-OA-2012-0033;FRL_9674_7] – May 24, 2012

b) Second Federal Register Notice [EPA-HQ-OA-2012-0033;FRL_9706_4] – July 26, 2012

c) Third Federal Register Notice [EPA-HQ-OA-2012-0033;FRL_9527_8] – Feb 7, 2013
31006 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices 

7. 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. 

What information collection activity or 

ICR does this apply to? 

Affected entities: Entities potentially 

affected by this action are business or 

other for-profit as well as State, Local, 

or Tribal governments. 

Title: Hazardous Waste Report, 

Notification of Regulated Waste 

Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste 

Permit Application and Modification 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0976.14, 

OMB Control No. 2050–0024. 

ICR status: This ICR is currently 

scheduled to expire on December 31, 

2014. 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 in title 40 

of the CFR, after appearing in the 

Federal Register when approved, are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9, 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: The Hazardous Waste 

Report Instructions and Forms booklet 

is updated every two years, to comply 

with the statutory mandate that EPA 

conduct a survey of hazardous waste 

generation at least every two years. The 

report, known as the ‘‘Biennial Report,’’ 

has been conducted since 1989, every 

odd-numbered year, known as the data 

collection year. The even-numbered 

years are known as the reporting years. 

The ICR has been renewed every data 

collection year, and the forms have been 

made available to respondents at the 

beginning of the reporting year. 

However, EPA is amending the current 

ICR this year so that the booklet for the 

next cycle, the 2013 cycle, will be 

available at the beginning of the data 

collection year. This change is in 

response to many requests by States. 

The proposed changes to the 2013 

booklet include: (1) Some management 

method codes will be consolidated in 

order to ease reporting, (2) the waste 

minimization codes will be revised in 

order to assist filers with reporting their 

waste minimization activities, and (3) 

editorial changes will be made to the 

description of some source codes in 

order to improve clarity for filers. 

This amendment will not affect the 

Notification booklet or the Part A Permit 

Application booklet, which are both 

part of this ICR. 

Burden Statement: The annual 

reporting burden for the Hazardous 

Waste Report is estimated to average 17 

hours per respondent, and includes time 

for reviewing instructions, gathering 

data, completing and reviewing the 

forms, and submitting the report. The 

recordkeeping requirement is estimated 

to average 4 hours per response and 

includes the time for filing and storing 

the Hazardous Waste Report submission 

for three years. 

The annual public reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for the 

Notification of Regulated Waste Activity 

is estimated to average 2 hours per 

response for the initial notification, and 

1 hour per response for any subsequent 

notifications. 

The annual public reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for the Part A 

Permit Application is estimated to 

average 25 hours per response for an 

initial application and 13 hours per 

response for a revised application. 

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: 

Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: 56,800. 

Frequency of response: biennially, 

and on occasion. 

Estimated total average number of 

responses for each respondent: varies. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

422,633 hours. 

Estimated total annual costs: 

$16,540,823. This includes an estimated 

burden cost of $16,339,984 in 

annualized labor cost and $200,839 for 

capital investment or maintenance and 

operational costs. 

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: May 10, 2012. 

Suzanne Rudzinski, 

Director, Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12628 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OA–2012–0033; FRL–9674–7] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Valuing Improved 

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay 

Using Stated Preference Methods; EPA 

ICR No. 2456.01, OMB Control No. 

20XX—New 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

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 a request for a new Information 

Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). Before 

submitting the ICR to OMB for review 

and approval, EPA is soliciting 

comments on specific aspects of the 

proposed information collection as 

described below. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before July 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OA–2012–0033 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: oei.docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Office of Environmental 

Information, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices 31007 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OA–2012– 

0033. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site 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 email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Nathalie Simon, National Center for 

Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy, (1809T), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–566–2347; fax 

number: 202–566–2363; email address: 

simon.nathalie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

How can I access the docket and/or 

submit comments? 

EPA has established a public docket 

for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OA–2012–0033, which is available 

for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person 

viewing at the Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Reading Room 

is 202–566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OEI Docket is 202–566– 

1752. 

Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a 

copy of the draft collection of 

information, submit or view public 

comments, access the index listing of 

the contents of the docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘search,’’ then key in 

the docket ID number identified in this 

document. 

What information is EPA particularly 

interested in? 

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

the PRA, EPA specifically solicits 

comments and information to enable it 

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 accuracy of 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. 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. 

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. Offer alternative ways to improve 

the collection activity. 

6. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the deadline identified 

under DATES. 

7. 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. 

What information collection activity or 

ICR does this apply to? 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OA–2012– 

0033. 

Affected entities: Entities potentially 

affected by this action are members of 

the general public who may be 

contacted to participate in the study. 

Title: Willingness to Pay for Improved 

Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay. 

ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2456.01, 

OMB Control No. 2012-new. 

ICR status: This ICR is for a new 

information collection activity. 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 in title 40 of the CFR, 

after appearing in the Federal Register 

when approved, are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9, 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: On May 12, 2009 the 

President signed Executive Order 13508 

calling for the protection and restoration 

of the Chesapeake Bay. In response to 

the Executive Order and other 

considerations the Environmental 

Protection Agency established Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of 

nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment for 

the Chesapeake Bay. These TMDLs 

called for reductions of 25, 24, and 20%, 

respectively, of these pollutants (EPA 

2011). 

The Chesapeake Bay watershed 

encompasses 64,000 square miles in 

parts of six states and the District of 

Columbia. While efforts have been 

underway to restore the Bay for more 

than 25 years, and significant progress 

has been made over that period, the 

TMDLs are necessary to continue 

progress toward the goal of a healthy 

Bay. As might be expected, a program 

on this scale is likely to be expensive. 

A 2004 report on implementation of the 

‘‘tributary strategies’’ proposed under an 

earlier plan for Bay restoration 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
31008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices 

estimated their cost at $28 billion in 

capital costs plus an additional $2.7 

billion dollars per year in perpetuity for 

operating and maintenance costs (Blue 

Ribbon Panel 2004). The watershed 

states of New York, Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, and 

Maryland, as well as the District of 

Columbia, have developed Watershed 

Implementation Plans (WIPs) detailing 

the steps each will take to meet its 

obligations under the TMDLs. EPA has 

begun a new study to estimate costs of 

compliance with the TMDLs. While 

these costs may prove high, a multitude 

of benefits may also be anticipated to 

arise from restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 

It is important to put cost estimates in 

perspective by estimating corresponding 

benefits. 

EPA’s National Center for 

Environmental Economics (NCEE) is 

undertaking a benefits analysis of 

improvements in Bay water quality 

under the TMDLs, as well as of ancillary 

benefits that might arise from terrestrial 

measures taken to improve water 

quality. As part of this analysis, NCEE 

plans to conduct a broad-based inquiry 

into benefits using a state-of-the-art 

stated preference survey. Benefits from 

the TMDLs for the Chesapeake will 

accrue to those who live on or near the 

Bay and its tributaries, as well as to 

those who live further away and may 

never visit the Bay but have a general 

concern for the environment. The latter 

category of benefits is typically called 

‘‘non-use values’’ and estimating the 

monetary value can only be achieved 

through a stated preference survey. 

In addition, a stated preference survey 

is able to estimate ‘‘use values,’’ those 

benefits that accrue to individuals who 

choose to live on or near the Bay or 

recreate in the watershed. Stated 

preference surveys allow the analyst to 

define a specific object of choice or suite 

of choices such that benefits are defined 

in as precise a manner as feasible. While 

use benefits of water quality 

improvements in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed will also be estimated 

through other revealed preference 

methods, the stated preference survey 

allows for careful specification of the 

choice scenarios and will complement 

estimates found using other methods. 

Participation in the survey will be 

voluntary and the identity of the 

participants will be kept confidential. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 0.5 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: 

Estimated total number of potential 

respondents: 1500. 

Frequency of response: once. 

Estimated total average number of 

responses for each respondent: 1. 

Estimated total annual burden hours: 

750 hours. 

Estimated total annual costs: $ 

15,975. This includes estimated 

respondent burden costs only as there 

are no capital costs or operating and 

maintenance costs associated with this 

collection of information. 

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: May 2, 2012. 

Al McGartland, 

Office Director, National Center for 

Environmental Economics. 

[FR Doc. 2012–12298 Filed 5–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0209; FRL–9351–1] 

Enforceable Consent Agreement 

Development for Two Cyclic Siloxanes; 

Solicitation of Interested Parties and 

Notice of Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: EPA is giving notice of a 

public meeting to negotiate an 

enforceable consent agreement (ECA) to 

collect certain environmental 

monitoring data on 

octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4) and 

decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5). A 

private organization has submitted a 

proposed ECA to EPA. EPA has 

evaluated the proposal and believes that 

proceeding with the negotiation of a 

consent agreement is an efficient means 

of developing the data, and now solicits 

additional persons with an interest in 

participating in the negotiations to 

notify EPA and announces a public 

meeting to initiate negotiations. 

DATES: The meeting to initiate ECA 

negotiations for D4 and D5 

environmental monitoring will be held 

on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 from 

10 a.m. to 1 p.m. 

While this meeting is open to the 

public, you must notify EPA in writing 

on or before June 25, 2012, if you wish 

to be considered an ‘‘interested party’’ 

and participate in the ECA negotiations 

for D4 and D5 environmental 

monitoring. 

To request accommodation of a 

disability, please contact the technical 

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. 

ADDRESSES: Your written notification 

that you wish to participate in the ECA 

negotiation must be submitted to the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

The public meeting to initiate 

negotiations on an ECA for D4 and D5 

will be held at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA East, Room 

1117A, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Robert 

Jones, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, East Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 

4328G, Washington, DC 20460–0001; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
43822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Notices 

received by the Secretary of the 

Commission. The communications 

listed are grouped by docket numbers in 

ascending order. These filings are 

available for review at the Commission 

in the Public Reference Room or may be 

viewed on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary 

link. Enter the docket number, 

excluding the last three digits, in the 

docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, please contact 

FERC, Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at (866)208–3676, or for TTY, 

contact (202)502–8659. 

Docket No. Communication date Presenter or requester 

1. CP11–72–000 .......................................................... 6–27–12 Ryan Bernstein 1. 

2. CP11–515–000 ........................................................ 7–9–12 Michael Mojica 2. 

3. CP08–6–000 ............................................................ 7–11–12 David J. Devine. 

4. CP11–161–000 ........................................................ 7–13–12 Jolie DeFeis 3. 

Exempt: 

1. P–12796–004 ........................................................... 6–21–12 Eileen McLanahan 4. 

2. P–12690–005 ........................................................... 6–22–12 FERC Staff 5. 

3. P–2458–000 ............................................................. 6–27–12 Hon. Michael H. Michaud. 

4. CP11–161–000 ........................................................ 6–27–12 Hon. Tom Marino. 

5. P–11810–000 ........................................................... 6–28–12 Hon. Jeff Duncan. 

6. CP11–72–000 .......................................................... 6–28–12 Hon. Mary L. Landrieu. 

7. CP11–161–000 ........................................................ 7–5–12 Members of Congress 6. 

8. OR12–17–000 .......................................................... 7–6–12 Tex ‘‘Red Tipped Arrow’’ Hall. 

9. CP12–72–000 .......................................................... 7–11–12 Dept. of the Interior Staff. 

1Email record. 

2Email record. 

3Email record. 

4Email record. 

5Email record. 

6 Hons. Robert P. Casey, Jr. and Tom Marino. 

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18238 Filed 7–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OA–2012–0033; FRL–9706–4] 

Proposed Information Collection 

Request; Comment Request; Valuing 

Improved Water Quality in the 

Chesapeake Bay Using Stated 

Preference Methods (New) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is planning to submit an 

information collection request (ICR), 

‘‘Valuing Improved Water Quality in the 

Chesapeake Bay Using Stated Preference 

Methods (New)’’ (EPA ICR No. 2456.01, 

OMB Control No. 2010–NEW) to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. On May 24, 2012 EPA 

solicited public comments for 60 days 

on the proposed ICR. Certain supporting 

documents were not available for public 

review in the docket during the first 30 

days of the comment period, thus EPA 

is re-opening the comment period for an 

additional 30 days from the publication 

of this notice. Public comments are 

being solicited on specific aspects of the 

proposed information collection as 

described below. This is a request for 

approval of a new collection. 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. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before August 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OA–2012–0033 online using 

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method); by email to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by fax at (202) 566– 

9744; or by mail to EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes profanity, threats, 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Nathalie Simon, National Center for 

Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy, (1809T), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–566–2347; fax 

number: 202–566–2363; email address: 

simon.nathalie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supporting documents which explain in 

detail the information that the EPA will 

be collecting are available in the public 

docket for this ICR. The docket can be 

viewed online at www.regulations.gov 

or in person at the EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The telephone number for the 

Docket Center is 202–566–1744. For 

additional information about EPA’s 

public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets. 

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

the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments 

and information to enable it 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 

accuracy of 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. EPA will consider the 

comments received and amend the ICR 

as appropriate. The final ICR package 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Notices 43823 

will then be submitted to OMB for 

review and approval. At that time, EPA 

will issue another Federal Register 

notice to announce the submission of 

the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to 

submit additional comments to OMB. 

Abstract: The Clean Water Act (CWA) 

directs EPA to coordinate Federal and 

State efforts to improve water quality in 

the Chesapeake Bay. In 2009, Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13508 re-emphasized this 

mandate, directing EPA to define the 

next generation of tools and actions to 

restore water quality in the Bay and 

describe the changes to be made to 

regulations, programs, and policies to 

implement these actions. In response, 

EPA is undertaking an assessment of the 

costs and benefits of meeting 

established pollution budgets, called 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), of 

nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment for 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay watershed 

encompasses 64,000 square miles in 

parts of six states and the District of 

Columbia. While efforts have been 

underway to restore the Bay for more 

than 25 years, and significant progress 

has been made over that period, the 

TMDLs are necessary to continue 

progress toward the goal of a healthy 

Bay. The watershed states of New York, 

Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, 

Virginia, and Maryland, as well as the 

District of Columbia, have developed 

Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) 

detailing the steps each will take to 

meet its obligations under the TMDLs. 

EPA has begun a new study to estimate 

costs of compliance with the TMDLs. A 

multitude of benefits may also be 

anticipated to arise from restoring the 

Chesapeake Bay. It is important to put 

cost estimates in perspective by 

estimating corresponding benefits. 

EPA’s National Center for 

Environmental Economics (NCEE) is 

undertaking a benefits analysis of 

improvements in Bay water quality 

under the TMDLs, as well as of ancillary 

benefits that might arise from terrestrial 

measures taken to improve water 

quality. As part of this analysis, NCEE 

plans to conduct a broad-based inquiry 

into benefits using a state-of-the-art 

stated preference survey. Benefits from 

the TMDLs for the Chesapeake will 

accrue to those who live on or near the 

Bay and its tributaries, as well as to 

those who live further away and may 

never visit the Bay but have a general 

concern for the environment. The latter 

category of benefits is typically called 

‘‘non-use values’’ and estimating the 

monetary value can only be achieved 

through a stated preference survey. 

In addition, a stated preference survey 

is able to estimate ‘‘use values,’’ those 

benefits that accrue to individuals who 

choose to live on or near the Bay or 

recreate in the watershed. Stated 

preference surveys allow the analyst to 

define a specific object of choice or suite 

of choices such that benefits are defined 

in as precise a manner as feasible. While 

use benefits of water quality 

improvements in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed will also be estimated 

through other revealed preference 

methods, the stated preference survey 

allows for careful specification of the 

choice scenarios and will complement 

estimates found using other methods. 

Participation in the survey will be 

voluntary and the identity of the 

participants will be kept confidential. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Individuals 18 years of age or older, 

residing in one of 18 east coast states 

and the District of Columbia. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

voluntary. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

Primary survey: 2,400 respondents; 400 

non-response survey. 

Frequency of response: one time 

collection. 

Total estimated burden: 1,034 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.03(b). 

Total estimated cost: $24,123 (per 

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs. 

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

Al McGartland, 

Director, National Center for Environmental 

Economics, Office of Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18319 Filed 7–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

[Notice 2012–05] 

Filing Dates for the Michigan Special 

Election in the 11th Congressional 

District 

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of filing dates for special 

election. 

SUMMARY: Michigan has scheduled 

elections on September 5, 2012, and 

November 6, 2012, to fill the U.S. House 

seat in the 11th Congressional District 

vacated by Representative Thaddeus 

McCotter. 

Committees required to file reports in 

connection with the Special Primary 

Election on September 5, 2012, shall file 

a 12-day Pre-Primary Report. 

Committees required to file reports in 

connection with both the Special 

Primary and Special General Election on 

November 6, 2012, shall file a 12-day 

Pre-Primary Report, a 12-day PreGeneral Report, and a 30-day PostGeneral Report. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Elizabeth S. Kurland, Information 

Division, 999 E Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20463; Telephone: (202) 694–1100; 

Toll Free (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Principal Campaign Committees 

All principal campaign committees of 

candidates who participate in the 

Michigan Special Primary and Special 

General Elections shall file a 12-day PrePrimary Report on August 24, 2012; a 

12-day Pre-General Report on October 

25, 2012; and a 30-day Post-General 

Report on December 6, 2012. (See chart 

below for the closing date for each 

report). 

All principal campaign committees of 

candidates participating only in the 

Special Primary Election shall file a 12- 

day Pre-Primary Report on August 24, 

2012. (See chart below for the closing 

date for each report). 

Note that these reports are in addition 

to the campaign committee’s quarterly 

filing in October. (See chart below for 

the closing date for each report). 

Unauthorized Committees (PACs and 

Party Committees) 

Political committees filing on a 

quarterly basis in 2012 are subject to 

special election reporting if they make 

previously undisclosed contributions or 

expenditures in connection with the 

Michigan Special Primary or Special 

General Election by the close of books 

for the applicable report(s). (See chart 

below for the closing date for each 

report). 

Committees filing monthly that make 

contributions or expenditures in 

connection with the Michigan Special 

Primary or General Elections will 

continue to file according to the 

monthly reporting schedule. 

Additional disclosure information in 

connection with the Michigan Special 

Election may be found on the FEC Web 

site at http://www.fec.gov/info/ 

report_dates.shtml. 

Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling 

Activity 

Principal campaign committees, party 

committees and Leadership PACs that 

are otherwise required to file reports in 

connection with the special elections 

must simultaneously file FEC Form 3L 

if they receive two or more bundled 

contributions from lobbyists/registrants 

or lobbyist/registrant PACs that 

aggregate in excess of $16,700 during 

the special election reporting periods 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register /Vol. 78, No. 26 /Thursday, February7, 2013 / Notices 9045

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/pastsips.htm. The adequate 

MVEBs are shown in the following 

table:

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AREA

MVEBS 2009 ATTAINMENT PLAN

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick

Westlund (202) 566–1682, or email at 

westlund.rick@epa.gov and please refer 

to the appropriate EPA Information 

Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Number 2060–0621; expires on

01/31/2016; Approved without change.

John Moses,

Director, Collections Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 2013– 02761 Filed 2– 6–13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

AND 2010 CONTINGENCY PLAN OMB Responses to Agency Clearance

Requests

Milestone 

year

VOCs

(tons per day)

NOX

(tons per day)

2009 ..........

2010 ..........

66.5

N/A

146.1

144.3

Transportation conformity is required 

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

as amended in 1990. EPA’s conformity 

rule requires that transportation plans, 

programs and projects conform to state 

air quality implementation plans and 

establishes the criteria and procedures 

for determining whether or not they do. 

Conformity to a SIP meansthat 

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 EPA determines 

whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for 

conformity purposes are outlined in 40

CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA has described the 

process for determining the adequacy of 

submitted SIP budgets in 40 CFR

93.118(f) and has followed this rule in 

making its adequacy determination.

Dated: January 25, 2013.

W.C. Early,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013– 02808 Filed 2– 6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

[FRL–9528–1]

Agency Information Collection

Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance 

requests, in compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). 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 

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 

and 48 CFR chapter 15.

OMB Approvals

EPA ICR Number 0161.12; Foreign 

Purchaser Acknowledgment Statement 

of Unregistered Pesticides; 40 CFR part

168, subpart D; was approved on 01/04/

2013; OMB Number 2070–0027; expires 

on 01/31/2016; Approved without 

change.

EPA ICR Number 2263.04; NSPS for

Petroleum Refineries for which 

Construction, Reconstruction, or 

Modification Commenced after May 14,

2007; 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and Ja; 

was approved on 01/07/2013; OMB 

Number 2060–0602; expires on 12/31/

2015; Approved without change. 

EPA ICR Number 1718.09; Fuel

Quality Regulations for Diesel Fuel Sold 

in 2001 and Later Years; Tax-Exempt 

(Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; and NonRoad Locomotive and Marine Diesel 

Fuel (Renewal); 40 CFR 80.561 and

80.597; and 40 CFR part 80 subpart I; 

was approved on 01/19/2013; OMB 

Number 2060–0308; expires on 01/31/

2016; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 2450.01; EPA’s

Design for the Environment (DfE) 

Partner of the Year Awards Program; 

was approved on 01/23/2013; OMB 

Number 2070–0184; expires on 01/31/

2016; Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 1901.05; NSPS for

Emission Guidelines and Compliance 

Times for Small Municipal Waste 

Combustion Units Constructed on or 

before August 30, 1999; 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts A and BBBB; was approved on

01/29/2013; OMB Number 2060–0424; 

expires on 01/31/2016; Approved 

without change.

EPA ICR Number 1061.12; NSPS for

the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry; 40

CFR part 60, subparts T, U, V, W and 

X; was approved on 01/30/2013; OMB 

Number 2060–0037; expires on 01/31/

2016; Approved without change. 

EPA ICR Number 1935.04;

Standardized Permit for RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Management Facilities 

(Renewal); 40 CFR part 267; 40 CFR

270.290, 270.300–270.315; was 

approved on 01/30/2013; OMB Number

2050–0182; expires on 01/31/2016; 

Approved with change.

EPA ICR Number 2323.05; NESHAP

for Chemical Manufacturing Area 

Sources; 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and 

VVVVVV; was approved on 01/30/2013;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[EPA–HQ–OA–2012–0033; FRL–9527–8]

Information Collection Request 

Submitted to OMB for Review and 

Approval; Comment Request; 

Willingness To Pay Survey for 

Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily 

Load: Instrument, Pre-Test, and 

Implementation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency has submitted an information 

collection request (ICR), ‘‘Willingness to 

Pay Survey for Chesapeake Bay Total 

Maximum Daily Load: Instrument, Pretest, and Implementation’’ (EPA ICR No.

2456.01, OMB Control No. 2010–NEW) 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

This is a request for approval of a new 

collection. Public comments were 

previously requested via the Federal 

Register (77 FR 31006) on May 24, 2012 

during a 60-day comment period, which 

was later extended for an additional 30 

days (77 FR 43822). This notice allows 

for an additional 30 days for public 

comments. A fuller description of the 

ICR is given below, including its 

estimated burden and cost to the public. 

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.

DATES: Additional comments may be 

submitted on or before March 11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing Docket ID Number EPA–

HQ–OA–2012–0033, to (1) EPA online 

using www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method); by email to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by fax at (202) 566–

9744; or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) 

OMB via email to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Address 

comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

EPA’s policy is that all comments

received will be included in the public
9046 Federal Register /Vol. 78, No. 26 /Thursday, February7, 2013 / Notices

docket without change including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes profanity, threats, 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Nathalie Simon, National Center for 

Environmental Economics, Office of 

Policy, (1809T), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: 202–566–2347; fax 

number: 202–566–2363; email address: 

simon.nathalie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Supporting documents which explain in 

detail the information that the EPA will 

be collecting are available in the public 

docket for this ICR. The docket can be 

viewed online at www.regulations.gov

or in person at the EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301

Constitution Ave., NW. Washington, DC.

The telephone number for the Docket

Center is 202–566–1744. For additional

information about EPA’s public docket,

visit http://www.epa.gov/ dockets.

Abstract: The Clean Water Act (CWA)

directs EPA to coordinate Federal and 

State efforts to improve water quality in 

the Chesapeake Bay. In 2009, Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13508 reemphasized this 

mandate, directing EPA to define the 

next generation of tools and actions to 

restore water quality in the Bay and 

describe the changes to be made to 

regulations, programs, and policies to 

implement these actions. The 

Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses

64,000 square miles in parts of six states 

and the District of Columbia. It is the 

largest estuary in the United States and 

the third largest in the world. The 

Chesapeake Bay’s unique set of 

ecological and cultural elements has 

motivated efforts to preserve and restore 

its condition for more than 25 years. 

Significant progress has been made over 

that period however, pollution budgets, 

called Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs), are necessary to continue 

progress toward the goal of a healthy 

Bay. The watershed states of New York, 

Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, 

Virginia, and Maryland, as well as the 

District of Columbia, have developed 

Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) 

detailing the steps each will take to

meet its obligations under the TMDL.

As part of the next phase of this effort,

EPA is undertaking an assessment of the 

costs and benefits of meeting Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), of 

nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment for 

the Chesapeake Bay. As an input to the

TMDL benefits study, EPA’s National 

Center for Environmental Economics 

(NCEE) is seeking approval to conduct

a stated preference survey to collect data 

on households’ use of Chesapeake Bay 

and its watershed, preferences for a 

variety of water quality improvements 

likely to follow from pollution

reduction programs, and demographic 

information. If approved, the survey 

would be administered by mail in two 

phases to a sample of 9,140 residents 

living in the Chesapeake Bay states, 

Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other 

east coast states.

Benefits from meeting the TMDL for 

the Chesapeake Bay will accrue to those 

who live near the Bay or visit for 

recreation, those who live near or visit 

lakes and rivers in the watershed, and 

those who live further away and/or may 

never visit the Bay but have a general 

concern for the environment. While 

benefits from the first two categories can 

be measured using hedonic property 

value, recreational demand, and other 

revealed preference approaches, only 

stated preference methods can capture 

nonuse benefits (i.e., benefits to those 

who may never visit the Bay).

Transferring estimates from other 

studies based in other estuaries is not 

advised as these results are unlikely to 

accurately or completely capture 

willingness to pay for TMDL-related 

improvements in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed given the unique character of 

this water resource and the goods and 

services it provides. Further, there are 

limited stated preference studies in the 

published literature focusing on the 

Chesapeake Bay, and no studies 

specifically addressing the 

environmental improvements predicted 

under the TMDL. This study will 

provide policy makers with additional 

information on the public’s preferences 

for improvements to the Chesapeake

Bay and lakes in the watershed. NCEE 

will use the survey responses to 

estimate willingness to pay for changes 

related to reductions in nitrogen, 

phosphorous, and sediment loadings to

the Bay and lakes in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. The analysis relies on state

of the art theoretical and statistical tools 

for non-market welfare analysis. The 

results of this study will inform the 

public and policy makers about the 

benefits of improvements to the 

Chesapeake Bay and lakes in the 

watershed. A non-response survey will 

also be administered to inform the 

interpretation and validation of survey 

responses. Participation in the survey 

will be voluntary and the identity of the 

respondents will be kept confidential to 

the extent provided by law.

The project is being undertaken 

pursuant to section 104 of the Clean 

Water Act which authorizes and directs 

the EPA Administrator to conduct 

research into a number of subject areas 

related to water quality, water pollution, 

and water pollution prevention and 

abatement. This section also authorizes 

the EPA Administrator to conduct 

research into methods of analyzing the 

costs and benefits of programs carried 

out under the Clean Water Act.

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: 

Individuals 18 years of age or older 

residing in one of 17 east coast U.S. 

states and the District of Columbia.

Respondent’s obligation to respond:

Voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents:

2,742 total to full survey total (includes

150 from pretest and 2,592 from main 

survey. An additional 770 total to nonresponse follow-up survey (50 from 

pretest and 720 from full survey 

administration).

Frequency of response: One time 

collection.

Total estimated burden: 887 hours. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). 

Total estimated cost: $20,682 (per

year), includes $0 annualized capital or 

operation & maintenance costs.

John Moses,

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. 2013– 02763 Filed 2–6– 13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY

[EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0655; FRL–9527–9]

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission to OMB for 

Review and Approval; Comment 

Request; NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate 

Manufacturing Plants (Renewal)

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 an Information Collection Request 

(ICR) has been forwarded to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval. This is a request 

to renew an existing approved 

collection. The ICR which is abstracted 

below describes the nature of the

collection and the estimated burden and 

cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be 

submitted on or before March 11, 2013.