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 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Notices 9047 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OECA–2012–0655, to: (1) EPA online, 

using www.regulations.gov (our 

preferred method), or by email to: 

docket.oeca@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Enforcement and 

Compliance Docket and Information 

Center, mail code 28221T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; and (2) OMB at: Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Learia Williams, Monitoring, 

Assistance, and Media Programs 

Division, Office of Compliance, Mail 

Code 2227A, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–4113; fax number: 

(202) 564–0050; email address: 

williams.learia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has 

submitted the following ICR to OMB for 

review and approval according to the 

procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. 

On October 17, 2012 (77 FR 63813), EPA 

sought comments on this ICR pursuant 

to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no 

comments. Any additional comments on 

this ICR should be submitted to both 

EPA and OMB within 30 days of this 

notice. 

EPA has established a public docket 

for this ICR under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OECA–2012–0655, which is 

available for either public viewing 

online at either http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or in person 

viewing at the Enforcement and 

Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center 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 

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, Confidentiality of 

Business Information (CBI), or other 

information whose public disclosure is 

restricted by statute. For further 

information about the electronic docket, 

go to www.regulations.gov. 

Title: NSPS for Ammonium Sulfate 

Manufacturing Plants (Renewal). 

ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 

1066.07, OMB Control Number 2060– 

0032. 

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to 

expire on April 30, 2013. Under OMB 

regulations, the Agency may continue to 

conduct or sponsor the collection of 

information while this submission is 

pending at OMB. 

Abstract: The affected entities are 

subject to the General Provisions of the 

NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and 

any changes, or additions to the 

Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart PP. 

Owners or operators of the affected 

facilities must submit an initial 

notification report, performance tests, 

and periodic reports and results. 

Owners or operators are also required to 

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. Reports are required 

semiannually at a minimum. 

Burden Statement: The annual public 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to average 71 hours per 

response. ‘‘Burden’’ means the total 

time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

This includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously- applicable instructions 

and requirements which have 

subsequently changed; train personnel 

to be able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

Respondents/Affected Entities: 

Owners or operator of ammonium 

sulfate manufacturing plants. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2. 

Frequency of Response: Initially, 

occasionally, and semiannually. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

284. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost: 

$27,449, which includes $27,449 in 

labor costs, and neither capital/startup 

costs, nor operation and maintenance 

(O&M) costs. 

Changes in the Estimates: There is an 

increase in burden hours for both the 

respondents and the Agency due to a 

correction in the calculation 

methodology. The previous ICR 

assumed the hours per occurrence for 

each burden activity included technical, 

managerial, and clerical hours. This ICR 

assumes these hours per occurrence are 

for technical hours only, and calculates 

additional managerial and clerical hours 

as 5 and 10 percent of technical hours. 

There is also an increase in the 

respondent burden costs due to a 

change in labor rates. This ICR uses 

updated labor rates from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics to calculate respondent 

burden costs. 

Additionally, there is a decrease in 

burden costs for the Agency from the 

most recently approved ICR due to a 

correction in labor rates. The previous 

ICR incorrectly used civilian rates to 

calculate Agency burden. This ICR uses 

rates from OPM, which results in an 

overall reduction in the Agency cost 

estimates. 

John Moses, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02762 Filed 2–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9777–9] 

Public Water System Supervision 

Program Revision for the State of 

Texas 

AGENCY: United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the State of Texas is revising its 

approved Public Water System 

Supervision Program. Texas has 

adopted three EPA drinking water rules, 

namely the: (1) Long Term 2 Enhanced 

Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2), (2) 

the Stage 2 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBP2), 

and (3) the Public Notification Rule 

minor revisions (PN/MR). EPA has 

determined that the proposed LT2, 

DBP2, and the PN/MRs submitted by 

Texas are no less stringent than the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES