30902 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

standardized reporting form to help

evaluate the potential for adverse

human health and environmental effects

caused by the manufacture or

importation of identified chemicals.

Chemicals for which a justifiable

information need for production, use or

exposure-related data can be satisfied by

the use of the PAIR, are identified

individually for one-time reporting

under PAIR. In addition to EPA, other

federal agencies may demonstrate a

justifiable information need, and EPA

will identify the chemical for reporting

under PAIR. In most instances the

information that EPA receives from a

PAIR report is sufficient to satisfy the

information need in question.

Responses to the collection of

information are mandatory.

Respondents may claim all or part of a

notice confidential. EPA will disclose

information that is covered by a claim

of confidentiality only to the extent

permitted by, and in accordance with,

the procedures in TSCA section 14 and

40 CFR part 2. 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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9

and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Burden Statement: The annual public

reporting burden for this collection of

information is estimated to be 28.45

hours per report. The Agency assumes

that respondents will submit an average

of 2.44 reports annually, for a per

respondent burden of 69.41 hours.

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; 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 following

is a summary of the estimates taken

from the ICR:

Respondents/Affected Entities:

Manufacturers, importers and

processors of chemical substances and

mixtures.

Frequency of Collection: One-time, on

occasion.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 48.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on

Respondents: 3,355 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs:

$609,116.

Changes in Burden Estimates: The

total burden associated with this ICR

has decreased from 3,489 hours in the

previous ICR to 3,355 hours for this ICR.

This adjustment in burden is

attributable to carrying through in the

burden hour totals the adjustment made

to the unit burden of the CBI

substantiation requirement, i.e., only 75

percent of sites or reports are expected

to make CBI claims. This adjustment

was made in the unit burden

calculations in the previous ICR but was

not carried through in the industry

totals. In addition, a few minor

mathematical corrections were made to

the estimates presented in the previous

ICR.

According to the procedures

prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has

submitted this ICR to OMB for review

and approval. Any comments related to

the renewal of this ICR should be

submitted within 30 days of this notice,

as described above.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 20, 2001.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 01–14478 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6993–3]

Agency Announcement of Information

Collection Activities: Submission for

OMB Review; Comment Request;

Collection of 2000 Aquatic Animal

Production Industry Data (EPA ICR

1988.01)

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 the following Information

Collection Request (ICR) has been

forwarded to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review and

approval: ‘‘Collection of 2000 Aquatic

Animal Production Industry Data’’ (EPA

ICR No. 1988.01). The ICR supporting

statement describes the nature of the

information collection and its expected

burden and cost; where appropriate, it

includes the actual data collection

instruments.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing

EPA ICR No. 1988.01, to the following

addresses: Sandy Farmer, US

Environmental Protection Agency,

Collection Strategies Division (Mail

Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer

for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington,

DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer

at EPA by phone at (202) 260–2740 or

e-mail at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or

download a copy off the Internet at

http://www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA

ICR No. 1988.01. For technical

questions about the ICR, contact Marta

Jordan by phone at (202) 260–0817 or by

e-mail at jordan.marta@epa.gov. For

economic questions about the ICR,

contact Kristen Strellec by phone at

(202) 260–6036 or by e-mail at

strellec.kristen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title:

Collection of 2000 Aquatic Animal

Production Industry Data (EPA ICR

No.1988.01). This is a new collection.

Abstract: EPA is planning to survey

aquatic animal production facilities to

collect the technical and economic

information EPA will need to develop

effluent limitations guidelines and

standards. Currently, no nationally

applicable effluent limitations

guidelines and standards exist to

regulate discharges from facilities in this

point source category. EPA is

developing proposed effluent

regulations for this category due, in part,

to the concern that excess nutrients and

other chemicals may be entering the

Nation’s waters from animal production

and feeding operations (both aquatic

and land based).

EPA is required by section 304(m) of

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(m),

to identify categories of sources that

discharge pollutants and to establish a

schedule for establishing effluent

limitations guidelines for these

categories. EPA is also required by the

terms of a Consent Decree with the

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

(NRDC) to propose effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for the aquatic

animal production point source

category. NRDC v. EPA, (D.D.C. Civ. No.

89–2980, January 31, 1992, as modified).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices 30903

EPA is conducting the surveys to collect

the information EPA needs to respond

to these legislative and judicial

requirements.

The Collection of 2000 Aquatic

Animal Production Industry Data is

intended to collect, from industry, the

type of technical and economic

information required by EPA to develop

effluent limitations guidelines and

pretreatment standards. The surveys

cover aquatic animal production

activities for both the private and public

sector. EPA will issue the survey

instruments under authority of section

308 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.

1318. Responses from survey recipients

will be mandatory. EPA will mail the

survey instruments to aquatic animal

producers after OMB approves the ICR.

Respondents will have the right to claim

information as confidential business

information. An Agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, an information

collection unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number. The OMB

control numbers for EPA’s regulations

are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR

Chapter 15. The Federal Register

document required under 5 CFR

1320.8(d) soliciting comments on this

collection of information was published

on September 14, 2000 (65 FR 55522).

Burden Statement: The data collection

consists of 4 elements: the screener

survey, a detailed survey, a follow-up

collection of existing wastewater

sampling data from a sample of the

detailed questionnaire respondents, and

a follow-up collection of economic

information on multi-facility companies

as necessary. The screener survey will

help to identify basic information on all

of the facilities EPA has identified, and

will help EPA develop a more accurate

mailing list and representative sampling

frame for the detailed survey. The

detailed survey will help EPA obtain

from a representative sample of facilities

more detailed information about

facilities within the various industry

sectors. The follow-up activities will

allow EPA to obtain the additional

information discussed above. The total

nationwide public reporting and record

keeping burden for this information

collection is estimated to be 24,840

hours (5,000 hours for the screener

survey; 19,565 hours for the detailed

survey; and 275 for the follow-up

activities). 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; to

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; to adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; to train personnel to be

able to respond to a collection of

information; to search data sources; to

complete and review the collection of

information; and to transmit or

otherwise disclose the information.

TABLE 1.—RESPONDENT AVERAGE BURDEN PER SURVEY RESPONSE ACTIVITY

Respondent activity

Total burden per activity (hours)

Survey Follow-up

Screener Detailed 1 Econ. Samp.

Read Instructions ............................................................................................................. .25 5 4 4 0 0

Gather Information/Data .................................................................................................. .25 11 8 722

Complete Survey Form .................................................................................................... .25 8 7 7 0 0

Review Survey Responses .............................................................................................. .25 7 7 5 0 1

All Activities ...................................................................................................................... 1 31 26 23 2 3

1EPA prepared three burden estimates depending upon the type of respondent and whether the respondent availed himself or herself of some

options to lessen the burden.

TABLE 2.—COLLECTION OF AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITIES DATA

Total number of

responses

Average burden per

respondent

(in hours)

Total burden

(in hours)

Average labor

costs per

respondent

(in dollars)

Total labor

costs

(in dollars)

Average O&M

costs per

respondent

(in dollars)

Total O&M

cost

(in dollars)

Total costs

(in dollars)

Screener Survey, Total Respondent Burden and Costs

5,000 ............................ 1 5,000 21 105,000 0.84 4,200 109,200

Detailed Survey, Total Respondent Burden and Costs

315 ............................... 31 9,765 762 240,030 15 4,725 244,755

315 ............................... 26 8,190 579 182,385 15 4,725 187,110

70 ................................. 23 1,610 517 36,190 15 1,050 37,240

Follow-up Activities, Total Respondent Burden Costs

100 ............................... 2 200 50 $5,000 $10.50 1,050 6,050

25 ................................. 3 75 67 1,675 9.50 238 1,913

EPA has identified approximately

5,000 facilities as potential aquatic

animal producers. EPA will distribute

the screener survey to all of the facilities

identified, the detailed survey to a

stratified random sample of about 500 to

700 facilities, and the follow-up to 125

facilities (this includes 25 for sampling

data and 100 for economic data). The

estimated cost to complete the screener

survey is approximately $21 per site.

The estimated cost to complete the

30904 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Notices

detailed survey is approximately $517

to $762 per site (depending on the type

of respondent). The estimated cost for

the follow-up activities is approximately

$50 to $67 per site. The estimated total

industry cost for the information

collection burden is $0.6 million.

Send comments on the Agency’s need

for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any

suggested methods for minimizing

respondent burden including through

the use of automated collection

techniques to the addresses listed above.

Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1988.01 in

any correspondence.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 01–14480 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[Docket A–2001–13; FRL 6992–9]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit

Program; Petitions for Objection to

State Operating Permit for Orange

Recycling and Ethanol Production

Facility Pencor-Masada Oxynol, LLC;

Orange County; Middletown, NY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on

petitions to object to State operating

permit.

SUMMARY: This document announces

that the EPA Administrator has partially

granted and partially denied petitions to

object to a State operating permit issued

by the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

to the Orange Recycling and Ethanol

Production Facility (Facility), proposed

by Pencor-Masada Oxynol, LLC

(Masada) for construction and operation

in Middletown, NY. Pursuant to section

505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act),

petitioners may seek judicial review of

those portions of the petitions which

EPA denied in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit

within 60 days of this decision under

section 307 of the Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of

the final order, the petitions, and other

supporting information at the EPA,

Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York,

New York 10007–1866. If you wish to

examine these documents, you should

make an appointment at least 24 hours

before visiting day.

The final order is also available

electronically at the following address:

http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/

artd/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/

masada_decision2000.pdf

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven C. Riva, Chief, Permitting

Section, Air Programs Branch, Division

of Environmental Planning and

Protection, EPA, Region 2, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866, telephone (212) 637–

4074.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act

affords EPA a 45-day period to review,

and object to as appropriate, operating

permits proposed by State permitting

authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act

authorizes any person to petition the

EPA Administrator within 60 days after

the expiration of this review period to

object to State operating permits if EPA

has not done so. Petitions must be based

only on objections to the permit that

were raised with reasonable specificity

during the public comment period

provided by the State, unless the

petitioner demonstrates that it was

impracticable to raise these issues

during the comment period or the

grounds for the issues arose after this

period.

Between June and September, 2000,

the EPA received 35 petitions from 29

different petitioners, requesting that

EPA object to the issuance of the title V

operating permit to the Facility owned

and operated by Masada and located in

the city of Middletown, Orange County,

New York. Robert C. LaFleur, president

of Spectra Environmental Group, Inc.

(Spectra), submitted the most detailed

petition. Spectra’s petition raised many

of the same issues posed by other

petitioners. Other petitions were

submitted by Lois Broughton, Wanda

Brown, Louisa and George Centeno with

Leslie Mongilia, Maria Dellasandro, R.

Dimieri, Lori Dimieri, Dawn Evesfield,

Marvin Feman, Deborah Glover, Anne

Jacobs, Barbara Javalli-Lesiuk, Marie

Karr, June Lee, Ruth MacDonald,

Bernice Mapes, Donald Maurizzio, Alice

Meola, Daniel Nebus, Jeanette Nebus,

Mr. and Mrs. Hillary Ragin, M.

Schoonover, Mildred Sherlock,

LaVinnie Sprague, Matthew Sprague,

Hubert van Meurs, Alfred and Catherine

Viggiani, Paul Weimer and Leonard

Wodka.

The petitions with respect to this

facility raised a number of distinct

claims, characterized as either

administrative/public participation

issues or technical/regulatory issues.

The petitioners alleged that the

NYSDEC did not comply with the

applicable public participation

requirements in issuing the Masada

permit because NYSDEC did not: (1)

Notify the public of the extended

opportunity for comment; (2) make

available to the public requisite

information necessary to review the

permit; (3) offer the public an

opportunity to comment on significant

changes to the draft permit; (4) properly

inform the public of its right to petition

to the EPA Administrator; (5)

substantively review public comments;

(6) grant requests for a second public

hearing, and (7) translate the public

notices and key documents for the nonEnglish speaking members of the

community. The petitioners also assert

that the Masada permit did not comply

with the applicable technical/regulatory

requirements in that the permit: (1) Fails

to assure compliance with major source

preconstruction permitting

requirements under the Act; (2) does not

assure compliance with several

allegedly applicable federal emissions

standards, (3) omits required provisions

governing chemical accident prevention

requirements, namely section 112(r) of

the Act and EPA’s implementing

regulations at 40 CFR part 68, and (4)

does not comply with the Executive

Order 12898 on environmental justice.

On May 2, 2001, the Administrator

issued an order partially granting and

partially denying the petitions. The

order explains the reasons behind EPA’s

conclusion that NYSDEC must provide

an opportunity for public review of

certain operational requirements in the

final permit issued to Masada, namely

the methodology which limits the

potential annual emissions of NOX and

SO2 from the facility. The order also

requires the inclusion of certain

provisions of the New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) for

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional

Steam Generating Units, specifically the

applicable reporting and recordkeeping

requirements of NSPS Subpart Db. The

order provides an explanation on the

reasons for denying the petitioners’

remaining claims.

Date: May 24, 2001.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 01–14482 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P