Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Notices 9845

2000; OMB No. 2040–0208; expires 12/

31/2003.

Short Term Extensions

EPA ICR No. 1826.01; Information

Collection for Equipment Manufacturer

Flexibility; in 40 CFR part 89, subpart

K; OMB No. 2060–0369; on 11/29/2000

OMB extended the expiration date

through 04/30/2001.

EPA ICR No. 1132.05; NSPS for

Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels;

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Kb; OMB No.

2060–0074; on 11/28/2000 OMB

extended the expiration date through

02/28/2001.

EPA ICR No. 1414.03; Hazardous

Organic NESHAP (HON); in 40 CFR part

60, subparts K, Kb, S, T, U, V, W, X,

AAA, and 40 CFR part 63, subparts F,

G, H, and I; OMB No. 2060–0282; on 11/

28/2000 OMB extended the expiration

date through 02/28/2001.

EPA ICR No. 0857.07; Polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs): Manufacturing,

Processing, and Distribution in

Commerce Exemption; in 40 CFR part

750; OMB No. 2070–0021; on 11/22/

2000 OMB extended the expiration date

through 02/28/2001.

EPA ICR No. 1001.06; Polychlorinated

Biphenyls (PCBs): Exclusions,

Exemptions, and Use Authorizations; in

40 CFR part 761; in 40 CFR part 60,

subpart S; OMB No. 2070–0008; on 11/

22/2000 OMB extended the expiration

date through 02/28/2001.

EPA ICR No. 1683.02; NSPS for

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants,

Recordkeeping and Reporting; in 40

CFR part 60, subpart S; OMB No. 2060–

0031; on 11/22/2000 OMB extended the

expiration date through 02/28/2001.

EPA ICR No. 1684.04; Compression

Ignition Non-Road Engine Certification

Application; in 40 CFR part 86 and 89;

OMB No. 2060–0287; on 11/28/2000

OMB extended the expiration date

through 02/28/2001.

EPA ICR No. 1695.06; Non-Road

Spark-Ignition Engine at or Below 19

Kilowatts for Emission Certification and

the Averaging, Banking, and Trading

Program; in 40 CFR part 63, subpart R;

OMB No. 2060–0338; on 11/28/2000

OMB extended the expiration date

through 02/28/2001.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

Oscar Morales, Director,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 01–3506 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6944–2]

Agency Information Collection

Activities; EPA ICR No. 1503.04;

Submission to OMB; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of submission to OMB.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (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: Data Acquisition

for Registration (EPA ICR No. 1503.04;

OMB No. 2070–0122). The ICR, which

is abstracted below, describes the nature

of the information collection activity

and its expected burden and costs. The

Federal Register document, required

under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting

comments on this collection of

information was published on August 2,

2000 (65 FR 47491). EPA received no

comments on this ICR during the 60-day

comment period.

DATES: Additional comments may be

submitted on or before March 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments,

referencing the proper ICR numbers to:

Ms. Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of

Environmental Information, Collection

Strategies Division (2822), 1200

Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington,

DC 20460; And send a copy of your

comments to: 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:

Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone on 202–

260–2740, by e-mail:

farmer.sandy@epa.gov or access the ICR

at http://www.epa.gov/icr/icr.htm and

refer to EPA ICR No. 1503.04; OMB

Control No. 2070–0122.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ICR Title: Data Acquisition for

Registration (EPA ICR 1503.04, OMB

Control No. 2070–0122).

ICR Status: This is a request for

extension of an existing approved

collection that is currently scheduled to

expire on March 31, 2001. EPA is asking

OMB to approve this ICR for three years.

Under 5 CFR 1320.10(e)(2), the Agency

may continue to conduct or sponsor the

collection of information while the

submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

(7 U.S.C. 136) requires the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA,

the Agency) to register pesticides prior

to distribution and sale within the

United States. FIFRA also requires

applicants for pesticide registration to

provide EPA with the data needed to

assess whether the registration of a

pesticide would cause unreasonable

adverse effects on human health or the

environment, and grants EPA the

authority to require registrants to

provide additional data to maintain an

existing registration.

Burden Statement: The annual

‘‘respondent’’ burden for this ICR is

estimated to range from 6,267 hours to

54,288 hours per response, depending

on the type of DCI.

According to the PRA, ‘‘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 Agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to a

collection of information that is subject

to approval under the PRA, unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. The OMB control numbers for

EPA’s information collections appear on

the collection instruments or

instructions, in the Federal Register

notices for related rulemakings and ICR

notices, and, if the collection is

contained in a regulation, in a table of

OMB approval numbers in 40 CFR part

9.

The following is a summary of the

burden estimates taken from the ICR:

Respondents/affected entities: 20.

Estimated total number of potential

respondents: 9.

Frequency of response: As needed.

Estimated total/average number of

responses for each respondent: 1–2.

Estimated total annual burden hours:

91,196.

9846 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 29 / Monday, February 12, 2001 / Notices

Estimated total annual Non-labor

burden costs: $0.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. 01–3507 Filed 2–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6943–7]

Science Advisory Board; Notification

of Public Advisory Committee Meeting

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, Public Law 92–463,

notice is hereby given that the

Environmental Models Subcommittee

(EMS) National-Scale Air Toxics

Assessment (NATA) Review Panel

(hereafter, ‘‘NATA Review Panel’’) of

the USEPA Science Advisory Board’s

(SAB) Executive Committee (EC) will

meet on the dates and times noted

below. All times noted are Eastern

Standard Time. All meetings are open to

the public; however, seating is limited

and available on a first come basis.

Important Notice: Documents that are

the subject of SAB reviews are normally

available from the originating EPA office

and are not available from the SAB

Office—information concerning

availability of documents from the

relevant Program Office is included

below.

1—EC/EMS NATA Review Panel

Teleconference—February 21, 2001

The Agency is planning to conduct an

initial, national-scale assessment of the

potential health risks associated with

inhalation exposures to 32 air toxics

identified as priority pollutants by the

Agency’s Integrated Urban Air Toxics

Strategy, plus diesel emissions. While a

number of the elements of this assessment

plan have already undergone scientific peer

review, the entire assembly of these elements

and application of the full assessment

approach have not. Therefore, the Agency is

asking the NATA Review Panel to comment

on the appropriateness of the overall

approach, including the data, models, and

methods used, and the ways these elements

have been integrated, as well as to suggest

ways to improve these approaches for

subsequent national-scale assessments.

As a first step in this review, the NATA

Review Panel will conduct a public

conference call on Wednesday February 21,

2001 from 11 am to 1 pm (Eastern Standard

Time). The call will be hosted out of the EPA

Science Advisory Board Conference Room

(Room 6013), Ariel Rios Federal Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20004. Interested members

of the public may attend in person or connect

to the teleconference by phone. The purpose

of the call is to provide Panel Members with

the opportunity to clarify the Charge

questions (see below), request any

supplemental materials from the Agency, ask

questions on materials already received from

the Agency, and discuss preparations for a

public meeting of the NATA Review Panel on

March 20–21, 2001 in Durham, NC (see

below for details on the March meeting).

Providing Public Comments—The NATA

Review Panel will not be accepting oral or

written public comments at the conference

call, since this is an information-gathering

meeting. Public comments in both formats

will be accepted at the meeting on 20–21,

2001 (see details below).

For Further Information—To obtain

information concerning this teleconference,

please contact Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian,

Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see contact

information below). To obtain information

about how to participate in this

teleconference, please contact Ms. Betty

Fortune (see contact information below). A

draft agenda for the teleconference will be

posted on the SAB website (www.epa.gov/

sab) approximately 10 days prior to the

teleconference.

2—NATA Review Panel Meeting—March

20–21, 2001

The NATA Review Panel will meet on

Tuesday and Wednesday, March 20–21, 2001

at the USEPA Environmental Research Center

(ERC) Annex Building, Room S–23, 79 T.W.

Alexander Drive, Durham, NC. The meeting

will begin at 9 am and end no later than 5

pm each day.

Purpose of the Meeting—The NATA

Review Panel will review and receive

technical public comments on the EPA

Document entitled ‘‘National-Scale Air

Toxics Assessment for 1996’’, (EPA–453/R–

01–003), dated January, 2001. The Panel will

respond to questions in the Charge (see

below) that has been negotiated with the

Agency: The Panel is free to address

additional questions, as it sees fit.

Charge Questions—Keeping in mind the

stated goals and preliminary nature of this

assessment, EPA asks the NATA Review

Panel to generally comment on the

appropriateness of the overall approach,

including the data, models, and methods

used, and the ways in which these elements

have been integrated. Also, EPA solicits

suggestions on ways to improve these

approaches for subsequent national-scale

assessments. Specifically:

1. Given the nature of the National Toxics

Inventory (NTI) and the methods by which it

was developed and reviewed, have available

emissions data been appropriately adapted

for use in this assessment? Can the Panel

suggest improvements to EPA’s application

of the NTI for use in future initial nationalscale assessments?

(a) Can the Panel suggest improvements to

the treatment of compound classes (e.g.,

chromium and compounds), given the nature

of the information available in the inventory?

(b) Can the Panel suggest improvements to

the methods used to spatially distribute area

and mobile source emissions?

(c) Can the Panel suggest improvements to

the methods used to specify default point

source emission characteristics in lieu of

missing emissions data?

2. Is the approach taken for the geographic

aggregation of ambient and exposure

concentrations generated by the ASPEN and

HAPEM4 models appropriate in light of the

limitations of the models and of the available

emissions data?

3. Has available dose-response information

(e.g., different sources of information, a

different prioritization scheme) been

appropriately used in this assessment? Can

the Panel suggest methods that could

improve upon the use of available doseresponse information?

4. What are the strengths and the

weaknesses of the overall conceptual

approach to risk characterization used in this

assessment? Given the underlying science

and the intended purposes of the assessment,

can the Panel suggest ways in which the risk

characterization could be improved?

(a) Is the method used to aggregate cancer

risks appropriate? The aggregation of

carcinogenic risk within two categories,

based on weight-of-evidence classifications,

is of particular interest.

(b) Is the method used to aggregate noncancer hazards appropriate? The summation

of hazard quotients within target organs, the

categorization of sums by ranges of

uncertainty factors, and the inclusion of all

target organs (as opposed to only the organs

associated with the critical effect) are of

particular interest.

5. Although EPA has concluded that

available data are not sufficient to develop a

reliable quantitative estimate of cancer unit

risk for diesel emissions, it is clear that this

pollutant class may be of significant concern

in a number of urban settings. The risk

characterization in this report includes a

discussion of diesel particulate matter to help

states and local areas frame the importance

of this pollutant compared to the other air

toxics. In the context of this assessment, is

the discussion in this report regarding

making risk comparisons among other air

toxics appropriate? Can the Panel provide

any suggestions that would improve upon

this approach to comparing the toxic health

effects of diesel particulate matter with other

pollutants?

6. Given the limitations inherent in this

preliminary assessment, have uncertainty

and variability been appropriately

characterized?

(a) Can the Panel suggest ways that the

characterization of uncertainty and

variability could be improved, made more

transparent, or integrated more effectively

into the risk characterization?

(b) Can the Panel suggest methods for

quantifying individual as well as composite

uncertainties associated with the emissions

inventory, dispersion modeling, exposure

modeling, dose-response assessment,

quantitative risk estimates, and accumulation

of risk across air toxics?

7. Have the results of the assessment been

appropriately and clearly presented? Can the

Panel suggest alternative methods or formats

that could improve the presentation and

communication of these results?

8. Does the Panel have suggestions for

research priorities that would improve such

air toxics assessments in the future?