## 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


### 31007 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 101 / Thursday, May 24, 2012 / Notices

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


### 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;


### 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.

1 Email record.

2 Email record.

3 Email record.

4 Email record.

5 Email 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


### 43823 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 144 / Thursday, July 26, 2012 / Notices

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-dayPre-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 SpecialGeneral 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


### Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Notices 

### 9045

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/pastsips.htm. The adequate

MVEBs are shown in the following

table:



### M ETROPOLITAN 

### W ASHINGTON 

### A REA



### MVEB S 

### 2009 A TTAINMENT 

### P LAN 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 C ONTINGENCY 

### P LAN OMB Responses to Agency Clearance

Requests

Milestone

year VOCs (tons per day) NO X (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 means that

transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations,

worsen existing violations, or delay

timely attainment of the national

ambient air quality standards. The

criteria by which 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 Non

Road 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, Pre

test, 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, February 7, 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 non

response 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.