Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2011 / Notices 67437 

Enforcement and Compliance Docket is 

(202) 566–1752. 

Use EPA’s electronic docket and 

comment system at http:// 

www.regulations.gov to either submit or 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the docket, and 

to access those documents in the docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then 

key in the docket ID number identified 

above. Please note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing at http://www.regulations.gov 

as EPA receives them and without 

change, unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, Confidential 

Business Information (CBI), or other 

information whose public disclosure is 

restricted by statute. For further 

information about the electronic docket, 

go to http://www.regulations.gov. 

Title: NESHAP for Pulp and Paper 

Production (Renewal). 

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 

1657.07, OMB Control Number 2060– 

0387. 

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to 

expire on December 31, 2011. Under 

OMB regulations, the Agency may 

continue to conduct or sponsor the 

collection of information while this 

submission is pending at OMB. 

Abstract: The National Emissions 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Pulp and Paper 

Production were proposed on December 

17, 1993, and promulgated on April 15, 

1998. 

This NESHAP covers emissions from 

the pulping process relies on the 

capture and destruction of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) by either burning them 

in a boiler or kiln or by introducing 

them into the wastewater treatment 

system. The HAPs captured from 

bleaching systems are controlled with a 

chlorine gas scrubber. 

Pulp mill owners or operators 

(respondents) are required to submit 

initial notifications, maintain records of 

the occurrence and duration of any 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction in 

the operation of an affected facility, or 

any period during which the monitoring 

system is inoperative. Respondents are 

required to monitor and keep records of 

specific operating parameters for each 

control device and to perform and 

document periodic inspections of the 

closed vent and wastewater conveyance 

systems. In order to reduce the burden 

as much as possible, the compliance 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements are designed to cover 

parameters that are already being 

monitored as part of the manufacturing 

process. All respondents must submit 

semiannual summary reports of 

monitored parameters, and they must 

submit an additional monitoring report 

during each quarter in which monitored 

parameters were outside the ranges 

established in the standard or during 

initial performance tests. A source 

identified to be out of compliance with 

the NESHAP will be required to submit 

quarterly reports until the Administrator 

is satisfied that the source has corrected 

its compliance problem. 

Owners or operators of pulp and 

paper production facilities subject to the 

rule must maintain a file of these 

measurements, and retain the file for at 

least five years following the date of 

such measurements, maintenance 

reports, and records. All reports are sent 

to the delegated state or local authority. 

In the event that there is no such 

delegated authority, the reports are sent 

directly to the EPA regional office. This 

information is being collected to assure 

compliance with 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart S, as authorized in section 112 

and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The 

required information consists of 

emissions data and other information 

that have been determined to be private. 

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 the EPA regulations are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR 

chapter 15, and are identified on the 

form and/or instrument, if applicable. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 111 hours per 

response. Burden means the total time, 

effort, or financial resources expended 

by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 

or disclose or provide information to or 

for a Federal agency. This includes the 

time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements which have subsequently 

changed; train personnel to be able to 

respond to a collection of information; 

search data sources; complete and 

review the collection of information; 

and transmit or otherwise disclose the 

information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: Pulp 

and paper production. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

115. 

Frequency of Response: Initially, 

occasionally, annually, and 

semiannually. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

35,358. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$3,711,577, which includes $3,339,077 

in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, 

and $372,500 in operation and 

maintenance (O&M) costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: The 

adjustment decrease in burden from the 

most recently approved ICR is due to a 

more accurate estimate of existing and 

anticipated new sources. After 

consulting the Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and 

trade associations, and based on a 

recently completed research conducted 

by EPA, our data indicates that there are 

approximately 115 sources subject to 

the rule, as compared with the active 

ICR that shows 137 sources. No new 

facilities are expected to be constructed 

over the next three years of this ICR. 

The decline in the number of sources is 

mainly due to plant closures. The 

industry is undergoing widespread 

consolidation and corporate 

restructuring. However, there is an 

increase in cost per labor hours due to 

the updated labor rates. 

Because there are no new sources 

with reporting requirements, no capital/ 

startup costs are incurred. The only cost 

that is incurred is for the operation and 

maintenance (O&M) of the monitoring 

equipment. 

Dated: October 25, 2011. 

John Moses, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28259 Filed 10–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2011–0787; FRL–9483–8] 

Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Water 

Quality Criteria for Carbaryl—2011 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 304(a) of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is announcing the availability of draft 

national recommended water quality 

criteria for the protection of aquatic life 

from effects of carbaryl (EPA–820–D– 

11–001). The draft criteria document 

incorporates the latest scientific 

knowledge on the toxicity of carbaryl to 

aquatic life. The aquatic life criteria are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
67438 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2011 / Notices 

developed based on EPA’s Guidelines 

for Deriving Numerical National Water 

Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses 

(1985), (EPA/R–85–100). EPA’s 

recommended section 304(a) water 

quality criteria provides guidance to 

States and authorized Tribes in adopting 

water quality standards for protecting 

aquatic life and human health. These 

criteria are intended to protect aquatic 

life and do not evaluate human health 

toxicity data. EPA is soliciting scientific 

views on this document. EPA’s 

recommended water quality criteria 

provide technical information for states 

and authorized tribes in adopting water 

quality standards, but by themselves 

have no binding legal effect. 

DATES: Scientific views must be 

received on or before January 3, 2012. 

Scientific views postmarked after this 

date may not receive the same 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your scientific 

views, identified by Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2011–0787, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

scientific views. 

• Email: OW–Docket@epa.gov. 

• Mail: US Environmental Protection 

Agency; EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) 

Water Docket, MC 2822T; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

1301 Constitution Ave NW., EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington DC. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your scientific 

views to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2011–0787. EPA’s policy is that all 

scientific views received will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://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 http:// 

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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Water Docket/EPA/DC, 

1301 Constitution Ave, NW., EPA West, 

Room 3334, Washington DC. This 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

until 4:30 p.m., E.S.T., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Office of 

Water is (202) 566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana Eignor, Health and Ecological 

Criteria Division (4304T), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; (202) 566–1143; 

eignor.diana@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What are water quality criteria? 

Water quality criteria are either 

narrative descriptions of water quality 

or scientifically derived numeric values 

that protect aquatic life or human health 

from the deleterious effects of pollutants 

in ambient water. 

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

Act requires EPA to develop and 

publish and, from time to time, revise, 

criteria for water quality accurately 

reflecting the latest scientific 

knowledge. Water quality criteria 

developed under section 304(a) are 

based solely on data and scientific 

judgments on the relationship between 

pollutant concentrations and 

environmental and human health 

effects. Section 304(a) criteria do not 

reflect consideration of economic 

impacts or the technological feasibility 

of meeting the chemical concentrations 

in ambient water. 

Section 304(a) criteria provide 

guidance to States and authorized 

Tribes in adopting water quality 

standards that ultimately provide a basis 

for assessing water body health and 

controlling discharges or releases of 

pollutants. Under the CWA and its 

implementing regulations, States and 

authorized Tribes are to adopt water 

quality criteria to protect designated 

uses (e.g., public water supply, aquatic 

life, recreational use, or industrial use). 

EPA’s recommended water quality 

criteria do not substitute for the CWA or 

regulations, nor are they regulations 

themselves. Thus, EPA’s recommended 

criteria do not impose legally binding 

requirements. States and authorized 

Tribes have the discretion to adopt, 

where appropriate, other scientifically 

defensible water quality criteria that 

differ from these recommendations. 

II. What is carbaryl and why are we 

concerned about it? 

Carbaryl is a member of the N-methyl 

carbamate class of pesticides, which 

share a common mechanism of toxicity 

by affecting the nervous system via 

cholinesterase inhibition. Carbaryl has 

many trade names, but is most 

commonly known as Sevin®. It is is an 

insecticide, a molluscide, and is used to 

thin fruit in orchards. It is registered in 

the United States for controlling insect 

pests on over 115 agricultural and noncrop use applications, including home 

and garden uses (U.S. EPA 2007; U.S. 

EPA 2010). In a 2006 report, the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Assessment Program reported 

carbaryl as the second most frequently 

found insecticide in water, with 

detections in approximately 50% of 

urban streams (U.S.G.S. 2006). EPA has 

previously developed 304(a) criteria for 

the other three currently registered 

insecticides found most frequently in 

U.S. waters. 

III. What are the draft carbaryl criteria? 

EPA is today publishing draft national 

recommended water quality criteria for 

protecting aquatic life for carbaryl. 

These draft criteria were developed 

using EPA’s Guidelines for Deriving 

Numerical National Water Quality 

Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic 

Organisms and Their Uses (1985), (EPA/ 

R–85–100). The document has a new 

format that models the approach in the 

EPA’s Guidelines for Ecological Risk 

Assessment (EPA/630/R–95/002F). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2011 / Notices 67439 

Toxicity data for developing the water 

quality criteria were obtained from peerreviewed open literature studies and 

from studies submitted to the Office of 

Pesticide Programs for the registration 

and reregistration of pesticides. To 

ensure the quality of the information, 

the toxicity data and other information 

on the effects of carbaryl were subjected 

to both internal and external peer 

review. 

The draft criteria statement is as 

follows: The available data for carbaryl, 

evaluated in accordance with EPA’s 

guidelines for deriving aquatic life 

criteria (Stephan et al. 1985) [referenced 

in the criteria document] indicate that, 

freshwater aquatic animals would have 

an appropriate level of protection if the 

following are attained: 

1. The one-hour average concentration 

of carbaryl does not exceed 2.1 mg/L 

more than once every three years on 

average, the criterion maximum 

concentration or CMC (acute criterion). 

2. The four-day average concentration 

of carbaryl does not exceed 2.1 mg/L 

more than once every three years on 

average, the criterion continuous 

concentration or CCC (chronic 

criterion). 

The available data for carbaryl 

indicates that, estuarine/marine aquatic 

animals would have an appropriate 

level of protection if the following is 

attained: 

1. The one-hour average concentration 

of carbaryl does not exceed 1.6 mg/L 

more than once every three years on 

average (except where a locally 

important species may be more 

sensitive). 

IV. What is the relationship between 

the water quality criteria and state or 

tribal water quality standards? 

Water quality standards consist of 

three principal elements: designated 

uses, water quality criteria to protect 

those uses, and antidegradation 

requirements, providing for protection 

of existing water uses and limitations on 

degradation of high quality waters. As 

part of the water quality standards 

triennial review process defined in 

Section 303(c)(1) of the CWA, the States 

and authorized Tribes are responsible 

for developing, maintaining and 

revising water quality standards. 

Section 303(c)(1) requires States and 

authorized Tribes to review and modify, 

if appropriate, their water quality 

standards at least once every three 

years. 

States and authorized Tribes must 

adopt water quality criteria into their 

water quality standards that protect 

designated uses. States may develop 

their criteria based on EPA’s 

recommended section 304(a) water 

quality criteria or other scientifically 

defensible methods. A State’s criteria 

must contain sufficient parameters or 

constituents to protect the designated 

uses. Consistent with 40 CFR 131.21, 

new or revised water quality criteria 

adopted into law by States and 

authorized Tribes on or after May 30, 

2000 are in effect for CWA purposes 

only after EPA approval. 

States and authorized Tribes may 

develop site-specific criteria for 

particular waterbodies as appropriate, 

following EPA procedures described in 

the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical 

Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality 

Criteria by Modifying National Criteria 

(USEPA, 1984f). A site-specific criterion 

is intended to come closer than the 

national criterion to providing the 

intended level of protection to the 

aquatic life at the site, usually by taking 

into account the biological and/or 

chemical conditions (i.e., the species 

composition and/or water quality 

characteristics) at the site. If data in the 

national criterion document and/or from 

other sources indicated that the selected 

resident species range of sensitivity is 

different from that for the species in the 

national criterion document, States and 

authorized Tribes can use the Resident 

Species Procedure (Section 3.7.6 of the 

WQS Handbook). This procedure was 

first published in the 1983 Water 

Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA, 

1983a) and expanded upon in the 

Guidelines for Deriving Numerical 

Aquatic Site-Specific Water Quality 

Criteria by Modifying National Criteria 

(USEPA, 1984f) and later detailed in the 

‘‘Interim Guidance on Determination 

and Use of Water Effect Ratio for 

Metals’’ (EPA 1994). 

V. Where can I find more information 

about water quality criteria and water 

quality standards? 

For more information about water 

quality criteria and Water Quality 

Standards refer to the following: Water 

Quality Standards Handbook (EPA 823– 

B94–005a; August 1994); Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(ANPRM), (63FR36742; July 7, 1998); 

Water Quality Criteria and Standards 

Plan—Priorities for the Future (EPA 

822–R–98–003; April 1998); Guidelines 

and Methodologies Used in the 

Preparation of Health Effects 

Assessment Chapters of the Consent 

Decree Water Criteria Documents 

(45FR79347; November 1980); 

Methodology for Deriving Ambient 

Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

of Human Health (EPA–822–B–00–004; 

October 2000); Guidelines for Deriving 

Numerical National Water Quality 

Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic 

Organisms and Their Uses (EPA 822/R– 

85–100; 1985); National Strategy for the 

Development of Regional Nutrient 

Criteria (EPA 822–R–98–002; June 

1998); and EPA Review and Approval of 

State and Tribal Water Quality 

Standards (65FR24641; April 27, 2000). 

You can find these publications 

through EPA’s National Service Center 

for Environmental Publications (NSCEP, 

previously NCEPI) or on the Office of 

Science and Technology’s Home-page 

(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience). 

References 

U.S. EPA. 2007. Risks of carbaryl use to the 

federally-listed California red legged frog. 

Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, 

DC, http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/

effects/redleg-frog/carbaryl/

determination.pdf. 

U.S. EPA. 2010. Registration Review— 

Preliminary Problem Formulation for 

Ecological Risk and Environmental Fate, 

Endangered Species, and Drinking Water 

Assessments for Carbaryl. September 3, 2010. 

EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0230–0004. 

U.S.G.S. 2006. The Quality of our Nation’s 

Waters: Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams 

and Ground Water, 1992–2001. Circular 

1291. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA. 

Dated: October 20, 2011. 

Nancy K. Stoner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Water. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28255 Filed 10–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–ORD–2011–053; FRL–9485–1] 

External Peer Review Meeting for Draft 

Microbial Risk Assessment Guideline: 

Pathogenic Microorganisms With 

Focus on Food and Water 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Agency is announcing 

that Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), 

a contractor to the EPA, will convene an 

independent panel of experts to review 

the draft document, Microbial Risk 

Assessment Guideline: Pathogenic 

Microorganisms with Focus on Food 

and Water. EPA previously announced 

the release of the draft guidance for a 60 

day comment period (76 FR 44586– 

44587). The public comment period 

ended on September 26, 2011; EPA 

intends to forward public comments to 

the contractor for distribution to 

members of the review panel. The 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES