July 5, 2006 SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT & DRAFT QUESTIONS:

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST for ASSESSMENT OF EPA PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS EPA The United States Environmental Protection Agency Table of Contents Title Page 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1 1( a) Title of the Information Collection 1 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract 1 2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection 2 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data 2 3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3 3( a) Non duplication 3 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 3 3( c) Consultations 3 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection 3 3( e) General Guidelines 3 3( f) Confidentiality 3 3( g) Sensitive Questions 3 4. The Respondents and The Information Requested 4 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes 4 4( b) Information Requested 4 ( i) Data items, including record keeping requirements 4 ( ii) Respondent activities 4 5. The Information Collected Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 4 5( a) Agency Activities 4 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management 5 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility 5 5( d) Collection Schedule 5 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 5 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden 5 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs 7 ( i) Estimating Labor Costs 7 ( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs 8 ( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operations and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs 8 ( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs 8 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost 8 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 9 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables 9 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden 10 6( g) Burden Statement 10 List of Tables Table 6 1 Estimated Use of Generic ICR by Partnership Programs Table 6 2 Estimated Number of Annual Respondents Table 6 3 Estimated Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Table 6 4 Estimated Annual Agency Burden and Cost Table 6 5 Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs for Respondents and EPA Table 6 6 Total Estimated Three Year Burden Hours and Costs for Respondents and EPA Attachment A Questions for EPA Partnership Programs 1 U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ASSESSMENT OF EPA PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection: Assessment of EPA Partnership Programs 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is seeking approval for a three year generic clearance from the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) to collect data to be used for performance measurement of EPA Partnership Programs.

This will be a voluntary collection of information to assess the results arising from activities conducted by partners in EPA Partnership Programs. The proposed generic measurement ICR will involve voluntary collections of information via surveys to assess the activities of EPA Partnership Programs. Performance measurement data collected will detail awareness of associated environmental activities, behavior change, and associated environmental benefits. EPA proposes to use electronic surveys and questionnaires to assess activities for program purpose and design, strategic planning, program management, and program results to determine if the goals of the program are being met.

The affected audience for this ICR includes participants in all of EPA's Partnership Programs, including businesses, governments, and members of the community.

Similar to the OECA generic ICR for Assessment of Compliance Assistance Projects ( EPA ICR 1869.02), this generic ICR will streamline the ability of the 90+ EPA Partnership Programs to assess activities for program purpose and design, strategic planning, program management and program results to determine if the goals of the program are being met. Without this generic measurement ICR, each of the 90+ programs must develop an individual ICR, submit it to OMB, and OMB must then review and approve each ICR. The generic ICR will save both time and resources.

All assessments undertaken under this ICR will follow stringent procedures to ensure that data are collected and used properly and efficiently. This ICR will provide anecdotal data for the purpose of informing EPA of the perceived effectiveness of partnership programs and will also allow partnership programs to collect data on the environmental results of partner activities due to participation. The information collection is voluntary, and will be limited to non sensitive data concerning participation in partnership programs.

This process does not involve fact finding for the purposes of regulatory development or enforcement.

EPA estimates that a combination of surveys ( electronic, mail, and telephone) will generate voluntary responses from approximately 16,000 respondents for an estimated burden of 34,668 hours over a three year period. EPA anticipates that use of this generic ICR will increase over the course of three years, and the burden will grow each year. 2 2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection To help fulfill the broad mandate of protecting human health and the environment, EPA works with businesses, communities, state and local governments, and other organizations to achieve environmental goals through partnership programs. Partnership programs provide organizations with the information and assistance necessary to achieve and maintain various environmental goals.

EPA believes that measuring the performance of partnership programs is compulsory to ensure that partnership programs are reaching the intended audience, providing valuable resources, and achieving the desired environmental results. Understanding this will allow EPA to better design and manage these partnership programs to meet the needs of the participants and to meet EPA's environmental goals. A generic measurement ICR will significantly increase the ability of EPA Partnership Programs to: obtain sound program performance data to determine and evaluate the effectiveness of these partnership programs as well as help the programs obtain data to successfully complete PART reviews; increase the consistency of program performance data as an alternative/ adjunct to traditional regulatory approaches for achieving environmental results; minimize approval burden on OMB as submissions will be shorter and of higher quality via the generic measurement ICR process; and reduce burden on potential respondents by limiting the number of requests for information.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Uses of the Data EPA believes program measurement is a requirement of a well managed program. The feedback will help the Agency: assess activities for program purpose and design, strategic planning, program management and program results to determine if the goals of the program are being met.

This ICR only supports program assessments, which describe accomplishments, yet make no broad generalizations or claims. The ICR will not be used to make generalizations to overall populations ( e. g., industry sectors or geographic regions). The ICR does not involve " fact finding" for the purposes of regulatory development or enforcement, and the information obtained will not be used to make major policy decisions. Additionally, no sensitive data will be collected under this ICR.

After the partnership programs collect data under each survey, the responses will be reported to OPEI as specified in section 5( b). Following analysis, the synthesized findings will be shared with the appropriate Agency offices, which may use them to:

Develop baseline data on existing partner practices prior to participation in the partnership program.

Perform program evaluation to increase program effectiveness, including collecting ideas or suggestions for improvement of program services ( e. g., helplines, publications) from the people who use them.

Assess the current value of a program to participants for use in future program recruiting materials and to assess perceived benefits of the program compared with expenditures.

Identify topics on which to develop additional resources.

Assess changes in behavior and environmental results to inform EPA management and stakeholders of success and gauge program effectiveness. 3 EPA anticipates that the results of partnership program assessments will lead to increased participation in and improved effectiveness of the partnership programs. Ultimately, these changes could result in increased environmental results as the programs are tailored to best meet the needs of the participants.

3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Non duplication EPA will evaluate performance of partnership programs, including materials produced, educational/ outreach activities, and environmental results from partner participation. The information collected through this ICR will not overlap with other EPA surveys.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB On [ INSERT DATE], EPA published a pre ICR Federal Register Notice announcing its intent to submit an ICR to OMB regarding the measurement of partnership programs. EPA did not receive any comments on this ICR.

3( c) Consultations EPA has received feedback on this information collection from key stakeholders including:

EPA Partnership Program managers and staff who could make use of the ICR

Managers of the OECA and OPEI customer service ICR

EPA's Evaluation Support Division, which conducted a review of the draft questions 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection EPA anticipates that partnership programs will reassess their partners' activities every other year. In most cases, programs will only reassess one time during the three year clearance; therefore this information collection could not be conducted less frequently.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR complies with OMB's general guidelines for the collection of information.

3( f) Confidentiality No confidential data will be collected.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No sensitive data will be collected. 4 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes For this ICR, the term " respondents" refers to individuals who provide feedback on EPA's Partnership Programs and activities. Potential respondents include all partnership program participants including businesses, governments, and members of the community.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items, including record keeping requirements Information requested by surveys developed under this ICR will be used to assess partnership programs. Each survey will request specific information related to the partnership program being evaluated. EPA offers more than 90 partnership programs to a wide range of audiences. Section 1( b) identifies the general types of questions that will be asked in the surveys. Surveys developed under this ICR will be limited to those types of questions. See Attachment A for the list of questions.

For purposes of this generic ICR, EPA assumed the following three types of surveys will be used to assess partnership programs:

Level 1  Awareness Survey: This type of survey would include general questions about the participating organization and questions to determine changes in awareness of environmental issues as a result of participation in the partnership program.

Level 2  Awareness and Behavior Survey: This type of survey would include general questions about the participating organization and awareness of environmental issues along with questions to measure behavior change.

Level 3  Awareness, Behavior, and Environmental Results Survey: This type of survey would include behavioral change questions as mentioned above as well as environmental results and cost savings data. This survey would require respondents to track and collect some data.

( ii) Respondent activities As part of this ICR, respondents will review survey forms, collect data as necessary, answer questions, and submit survey forms to EPA.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities Agency activities associated with the collection of information on partnership programs may include:

Developing individual surveys

Disseminating questionnaires to respondents

Gathering information from respondents

Filtering/ screening response data obtained through Internet feedback screens 5

Reviewing data

Preparing findings

Storing and maintaining results

Adjusting partnership program activities based on assessment results 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management An internal review and oversight process, independent of the originating program office, has been established for all assessment activities conducted under this ICR. Prior to initiating an assessment, each program will provide to OPEI a memo with the following information:

Title, identification of originator, and appropriate contact information.

Summary and description of the intended purpose as it relates to the mission of EPA's Partnership Programs.

Delivery method ( e. g., electronic/ mail/ fax, phone), collection schedule, and follow up plans.

Planned use of information collected.

Number of respondents, and burden in costs and hours to respondents and the Agency.

OPEI will submit surveys to OMB for a 10 business day expedited review and determination. A summary including title, sponsoring office, number of respondents, and estimated burden hours and costs will be attached. Following the completion of assessment activities, all offices will provide copies of their approved assessment tool, analytical reports, and a description of any follow up actions to OPEI. The Agency will maximize the efficiency of information collection by making every effort to improve response rates to assessment activities.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility All data collected under this ICR are voluntarily reported. EPA expects that some of the participants in EPA Partnership Programs will be small entities. EPA has designed this generic ICR to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information.

5( d) Collection Schedule This will be dependent upon the needs of each originator of a survey. Schedules for surveys will be documented by the survey sponsors.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Respondent activities are expected to include only a few steps: reviewing instructions, responding to surveys, and sending ( via mail, e mail, or telephone) responses. To minimize the respondent burden, EPA will use simple, clear survey designs that are easy to respond to and are of limited scope. There will be no requirement for respondents to develop data gathering systems, train personnel, or maintain records. However, respondents might need to collect and track some data.

EPA expects the burden associated with this ICR to grow over the course of three years. This is due to several reasons. First, many partnership programs have existing ICRs in place and may not need to 6 use the generic ICR until they are due for renewal. Second, as EPA Partnership Program staff become more familiar with the generic ICR, OPEI anticipates that more programs will begin using it. Table 6 1 below presents the estimated use of this generic ICR by partnership programs over the course of three years. Over the course of these three years, participants in those partnership programs will be asked to submit information.

Table 6 1 Estimated Use of Generic ICR by Partnership Programs Year 1 10 programs Year 2 25 programs Year 3 35 programs To determine the total number of respondents, EPA assumed that its smaller partnership programs ( with 200 or fewer participants) would be most likely to use the generic ICR. Based on that assumption, EPA anticipates the number of respondents listed in table 6 2. In the first year, EPA estimates feedback from approximately 2,000 respondents for an estimated burden of 4,333 hours. In the second year, EPA estimates feedback from approximately 5,000 respondents for an estimated burden of 10,833 hours. In the third year, EPA estimates feedback from approximately 9,000 respondents for an estimated burden of 19,500 hours. In addition, those partnership programs that will use the generic ICR in year 1 will most likely reassess participant activities in year 3.

Table 6 2 Estimated Number of Annual Respondents Year 1 2,000 respondents Year 2 5,000 respondents Year 3 9,000 respondents Total 16,000 respondents Table 6 3 presented below, present the annual respondent burden and cost estimates. These estimates are based on OPEI's knowledge of surveys conducted under various partnership programs' ICRs and experience with similar performance measurement surveys used under OECA's generic ICR for Compliance Assistance Measurement ( EPA ICR 1869.02).

Using a list of pre determined questions ( Attachment A), partnership programs are able to select the questions they are interested in using. There are different types of questions geared at gauging awareness, behavior change, and measurement of partnership programs. Partnership programs using the generic ICR may select from these questions to design a tailored questionnaire for their specific needs. Partnership programs will also have the option of customizing the answer choices for the questions they choose to use.

Table 6 3 presents the total annual estimated respondent burden and cost for each information collection activity, broken down by survey type. 7 Table 6 3 Estimated Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Information Collection Activity Hours and Costs Per Respondent Total Hours and Costs Manager Technical Clerical Respond Hours/ Year Labor Costs per Year No. of Respond./ Activities Total Respond. Hours/ Year Total Cost/ Year Hourly Rate 79.49 64.80 34.86 Awareness Survey Review survey form 0.1 0.1 $ 6 1777.8 178 $ 11,520 Answer general questions to measure awareness 0.3 0.3 $ 19 1777.8 533 $ 34,560 Submit form 0.1 0.1 $ 6 1777.8 178 $ 11,520 Subtotal 0.5 0.5 $ 32 889 $ 57,601 Awareness and Behavior Survey Review survey form 0.1 0.1 $ 6 1777.8 178 $ 11,520 Answer questions to measure awareness/ behavior change 0.5 0.5 $ 32 1777.8 889 $ 57,601 Management review 0.3 0.3 $ 24 1777.8 533 $ 42,395 Submit form 0.1 0.1 $ 6 1777.8 178 $ 11,520 Subtotal 0.3 0.7 0 1 $ 69 1,778 $ 123,036 Awareness, Behavior, and Environmental Results Survey Review survey form 0.1 0.1 $ 6 1777.8 178 $ 11,520 Collect data for environmental results 3.8 3.8 $ 246 1777.8 6,756 $ 437,765 Answer questions to measure awareness/ behavior change and to illustrate environmental results 0.5 0.5 $ 32 1777.8 889 $ 57,601 Management review 0.5 0.5 $ 40 1777.8 889 $ 70,659 Submit form 0.1 0.1 $ 6 1777.8 178 $ 11,520 Subtotal 0.5 4.5 0 5.0 $ 331 8,889 $ 589,065 TOTAL 0.8 5.7 0 6.6 439.432 11,556 $ 769,702 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs In order to minimize the respondent burden, survey designs will be simple, convenient, easy to respond to, and clear in content and purpose. Surveys will be of limited scope and require only a short time to complete.

( i) Estimating Labor Costs The labor rates used to determine the estimated costs to respondents are consistent with the hourly wage rates published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics publications on employment and earnings. Rates include the cost of overhead and fringe benefits. EPA estimates an average respondent hourly labor rate ( hourly plus overhead) of $ 79.49 for managerial staff, $ 64.80 for technical staff, and $ 34.86 for clerical staff. 8 ( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs Activities supported by this ICR do not involve the purchase of monitoring or reporting equipment.

( iii) Capital/ Start up Operating and Maintenance ( O & M) Costs Activities supported by this ICR do not involve the purchase of monitoring or reporting equipment.

( iv) Annualizing Capital Costs Not applicable.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Table 6 4 provides the annual estimates for EPA burden and cost associated with developing and disseminating surveys and analyzing the results. EPA used its experience implementing other partnership programs to estimate burden estimates for Agency staff. The hourly labor rates used to determine the estimated costs to the Agency are consistent with annual labor rates published in the Federal Register and are based on the 2004 GS pay schedule available from the Office of Personnel Management. EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost of $ 62.91 for managerial staff; $ 46.11 for technical staff; and $ 18.51 for clerical staff. The labor costs are based on the following GS levels and steps: managerial rates were based on GS Level 14, Step 4; technical labor rates were based on GS Level 12 Step 5; and clerical labor rates were based on GS Level 5, Step 1. To derive hourly estimates, EPA divided annual compensation by 2,080  the number of hours in the Federal work year. EPA then multiplied hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6.

Because EPA expects use of the generic ICR to increase over the course of 3 years, in order to determine the Agency's annual burden, EPA assumed an average of 23.3 programs using the generic ICR each year, with those surveys being evenly divided between the three types of surveys. 9 Table 6 4 Estimated Annual Agency Burden and Cost Information Collection Activity Hours and Costs Per Respondent Total Hours and Costs Manager Technical Clerical Agency Hours/ Year Labor Costs per Year No. of Events Total Agency Hours/ Year Total Cost/ Year Hourly Rate 62.91 46.11 18.51 Awareness Survey Choose survey questions and response selections and develop forms 0.5 4 0.5 5 $ 225 7.7 38.5 $ 1,734 Distribute forms 1 1 2 $ 65 7.7 15.4 $ 498 Answer questions from respondents 2 2 $ 92 7.7 15.4 $ 710 Review completed submissions and enter into database, as necessary 8 2 10 $ 406 7.7 77 $ 3,125 Perform quality control 1 4 5 $ 247 7.7 39 $ 1,905 Subtotal 1.5 19 3.5 24 $ 1,035 185 $ 7,971 Awareness and Behavior Survey Choose survey questions and response selections and develop forms 0.5 6 0.5 7 $ 317 7.7 54 $ 2,444 Distribute forms 1 1 2 $ 65 7.7 15 $ 498 Answer questions from respondents 3 3 $ 138 7.7 23 $ 1,065 Review completed submissions and enter into database, as necessary 10 2 12 $ 498 7.7 92 $ 3,836 Perform quality control 1 4 5 $ 247 7.7 39 $ 1,905 Subtotal 1.5 24 3.5 29 $ 1,266 223 $ 9,747 Awareness, Behavior, and Environmental Results Survey Choose survey questions and response selections and develop forms 1 8 1 10 $ 450 7.7 77 $ 3,467 Distribute forms 1 1 2 $ 65 7.7 15 $ 498 Answer questions from respondents 4 4 $ 184 7.7 31 $ 1,420 Review completed submissions and enter into database, as necessary 12 4 16 $ 627 7.7 123 $ 4,831 Perform quality control 1 5 6 $ 293 7.7 46 $ 2,260 Subtotal 1 30 6 38 $ 1,327 293 $ 12,475 TOTAL 4 73 13 91 3627.75 700.7 $ 30,193.32 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs EPA estimates that over the three year life of the umbrella clearance, 16,000 respondents will voluntarily respond to partnership program assessments conducted under this ICR for a total burden of 34,668 hours and a total cost of $ 2,309,106.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables Table 6 5 summarizes the total estimated annual burden hours and costs for respondents and for the Agency. The total annual cost for respondents is $ 769,702 and the hourly burden is approximately 11,556. The total annual cost for the Agency is $ 30,193 and the hourly burden is approximately 701. Table 6 5 displays these combined estimates, as well as the grand total of $ 799,895 and the hourly burden 10 of 12,257 hours for all information collection activities under this generic ICR.

Table 6 5 Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours and Costs for Respondents and EPA Burden Hours/ Year Total Labor Costs/ Year Total Capital Costs/ Year Total Cost/ Year Respondents 11,556 $ 769,702 $ 0 $ 769,702 EPA 701 $ 30,193 $ 0 $ 30,193 TOTAL 12,257 $ 799,895 $ 0 $ 799,895 Table 6 6 summarizes the total estimated three year burden hours and costs for respondents and for the Agency. The total three year cost for respondents is $ 2,309,106 and the hourly burden is approximately 34,668. The total three year cost for the Agency is $ 90,579 and the hourly burden is approximately 2,103.

Table 6 6 Total Estimated Three Year Burden Hours and Costs for Respondents and EPA Burden Hours Total Labor Costs/ Year Total Capital Costs/ Year Total Cost Respondents 34,668 $ 2,309,106 $ 0 $ 2,309,106 EPA 2,103 $ 90,579 $ 0 $ 90,579 TOTAL 36,771 $ 2,399,685 $ 0 $ 2,399,685 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden This ICR does not modify an existing ICR.

6( g) Burden Statement The estimated average annual respondent reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is 2.2 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; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA HQOA 2006 0566, which is available for public viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 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 OEI Docket is ( 202) 566 1752. Use www. regulations. gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection 11 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. 1 Attachment A Questions for EPA Partnership Programs 1. Please indicate the total number of employees ( members) at your facility/ organization: __________

OR circle the range of number of employees that fits closest:

1 50 51 100 101 500 501 1000 1,001 5,000 5,000 +

2. Which of the following best describes your organization?

_____ Business or Industry ( Please include SIC or NAICS code, if available)

_____ Government _____ Non profit/ Non Governmental Organization _____ Other 3. What is your position in your organization? Check the one that best represents your primary focus area.

_____ Environmental, health, and safety _____ Information technology _____ Management _____ Contractor _____ Production _____ Sales/ Marketing _____ Finance _____ Other ( please specify): _________________________________________

4. How did you first learn about ( name of partnership program)?

_____ Industry partner _____ Web site _____ Brochure Directions: Partnership Programs using the generic ICR may select from these questions to design a tailored questionnaire for their specific needs. Regarding the questions listed below, bolded questions will not change. However, answer choices ( a, b, c, d, etc.) and examples can be tailored to the requirements of a specific Partnership Program. 2 _____ Conference/ Meeting _____ Other _____ N/ A 5. How important to you were the following reasons for joining ( name of partnership program)? ( 1= not important to 7= very important.)

Examples: _____ a. General information about < insert name of environmental problem addressed by program>.

_____ b. To learn about pollution prevention opportunities.

_____ c. To receive EPA recognition for our efforts.

_____ d. To network with other organizations.

_____ e. To improve public or industry perception of our organization.

_____ f. To identify cost savings opportunities.

_____ g. To obtain technical assistance from EPA.

_____ h. To improve environmental performance _____ i. Other ( Please specify.) ___________________

6. Overall, how valuable do you find your participation in ( name of partnership program) on a scale of 1 to 7 with 7 being the most valuable. Do you find participation in the ( name of the partnership program) to be worth the time and cost expended?

Value: _______ Because _________________________________________________________________

7. How would you rate your understanding of the following issues before your participation in ( name of partnership program)? ( 1= no understanding; 7= highest level of understanding) Select DK if you don't know or N/ A for not applicable.

Examples:

a. Issue 1 ______

b. Issue 2 ______

8. How would you rate your understanding of the following issues after your participation in ( name of partnership program)? ( 1= no understanding; 7= highest level of understanding). Select DK if you don't know or N/ A for not applicable.

Examples:

a. Issue 1 _______

b. Issue 2 _______ 3 9. How helpful are the following elements of the ( name of partnership program)? Please rate from 1 to 7 with 7 being the most helpful.

( Select DK if you don't know or N/ A for not applicable.)

Examples:

Web site ______ Electronic reporting system ______ Written program materials ______ Program implementation guide ______ Introductory program brochure ______ Technical assistance ______ Networking opportunities ______ EPA recognition ______ Staff knowledge ______ Staff responsiveness ______ Other ( please specify): _______________________________________________________________________

How could these elements be improved? _____________________________________________________

10. Please rate your preference for receiving information related to ( name of partnership program) ( 1= preferred method, 7= not preferred) ( Select DK if you don't know or N/ A for not applicable.)

Examples: _____ Manuals ( comprehensive)

_____ E mail _____ Phone _____ Fact Sheets ( short, single topic)

_____ Newsletter or journal articles _____ CDs _____ Web sites _____ Workshops _____ Videos _____ Other ( please specify):_________________________________________ 4 11. What internal activities has your organization conducted as a result of your participation in ( name of partnership program) [ Insert time period]? ( Check all that apply.) ( You will have the opportunity to quantify cost savings and environmental results associated with these activities in Questions 14 21 below).

Examples: ______ a. Food grown under integrated pest management ( IPM), organic, or other environmentally friendly food labeling programs ______ b. Adoption of IPM and other environmental stewardship practices ______ c. Promoted integrative vegetative management ( IVM) techniques ______ d. Other ( please specify): _______________________________________

______ e. Don't Know ______ f. Not Applicable 12. What management changes, if any, at your facility/ organization did you take as a result of your participation in ( name of partnership program) [ Insert time period]? ( Check all that apply.)

Examples: _____ a. Conducted a self audit _____ b. Established an environmental management system _____ c. Instituted training or other communication to improve awareness and/ or practices _____ d. Developed a " green team"

_____ e. Took no management action _____ f. Other ( please specify): ______________________________________________________

______ g. Don't Know _____ h. Not Applicable 13. What external activities did you conduct as a result of your participation in ( name of partnership program) [ Insert time period]?

( Check all that apply.)

Examples: _____ a. Referred the program to customers, industry colleagues, or suppliers _____ b. Publicized participation in the program to the community and other stakeholders _____ c. Encouraged parent/ sister organizations to participate in the program _____ d. Issued new requirements to suppliers ( e. g., participation in the program, change of specifications)

_____ e. No external activities will be conducted _____ f. Other ( please specify):________________________________________________

______ g. Don't Know _____ h. Not Applicable 5 14. What have been other benefits, if any, for your facility/ organization participating in ( name of partnership program)? ( Check all that apply.) Examples:

_____ a. Improved quality of products _____ b. Improved worker health and safety _____ c. Increased employee satisfaction/ morale _____ d. Public recognition _____ e. Access to resources and technical assistance _____ f. Improved efficiency ( e. g., less waste, better processes, etc.)

_____ g. Other: ______________

_____ h. No benefit 15. Please describe the environmental benefits of any GREEN DESIGN changes undertaken [ Insert time period] as part of your participation in ( name of partnership program):

Activity Amount Before Design Change Amount After Design Change Total Change Number of Units Planned for Production ( e. g., Redesigned product to eliminate lead and mercury) _____ Mercury per unit _____ Other _____ Don't Know _____ Mercury per unit _____ Other _____ Don't Know _____ Mercury per unit _____ Other _____ Don't Know _____ Units _____ Other 16. Please identify any change in GREEN PURCHASES ( or sales) as a result of participation in ( name of partnership program) [ Insert time period]. If available, please provide the amount of change:

Activity Amount Before Implementing Activity Amount After Implementing Activity Total Change ( e. g., Began using green power for 25% of operations) _____ Megawatts OR ____ BTUs of green energy ______ Dollars spent on environmentallypreferable products ______ Certified water efficient products ______ Biopesticides ______ Organic or slow release fertilizers _____ Megawatts OR ____ BTUs of green energy ______ Dollars spent on environmentallypreferable products ______ Certified water efficient products ______ Biopesticides ______ Organic or slow release fertilizers _____ Megawatts OR ____ BTUs of green energy ______ Dollars spent on environmentallypreferable products ______ Certified water efficient products ______ Biopesticides ______ Organic or slow release fertilizers 6 ______ Other:__________________

_____ Don't Know ______ Other:_________________

_____ Don't Know ______ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know If other factors aside from the actions taken impacted these results ( e. g., production decreased by 50 percent, change in total sales occurred, or change in number of employees occurred), please indicate that here. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

17. Please identify any change in RAW MATERIALS, process input supplies, and feedstocks that resulted, from the actions taken [ Insert time period] as a result of participation in ( the partnership program). If available, please provide the amount of the changes).

Activity Amount of Feedstock Used Before Implementing Activity Amount of Feedstock Used After Implementing Activity Total Change ( e. g., Lightweighted primary packaging)

Capital Costs ________

Cost Savings ________

( if known) _____ pounds of hazardous materials or toxic chemicals ( chemical name______)

_____ pounds of non hazardous materials ( e. g., packaging) ( type of material: e. g.,

paper, plastic, glass_______________)

_____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ pounds of hazardous materials or toxic chemicals ( chemical name______)

_____ pounds of non hazardous materials ( type of material: e. g., paper,

plastic_______________)

_____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ pounds hazardous material or toxic chemicals ______ pounds of non hazardous materials ( type of material: e. g., paper,

plastic_______________)

_____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know If other factors aside from the actions taken impacted these results ( e. g., production decreased by 50 percent, change in total sales occurred, or change in number of employees occurred), please indicate that here.

___________________________________________________________

Please briefly describe how you measured these results ( e. g., compared utility bills and after implementation) ____________________

If you provided cost savings, how were the savings calculated ( e. g., avoided purchasing costs, avoided labor costs)

_______________________ 7 18. Please identify any change in NATURAL RESOURCE use that resulted from the actions taken [ Insert time period] as a result of participation in ( the partnership program) If available, please provide the amount of the reduction( s):

Activity Amount Natural Resource Used Before Implementing Activity Amount of Natural Resource Used After Implementing Activity Total Change ( e. g., Installed highefficiency bathroom fixtures)

Capital Costs ________

Cost Savings ________

( if known) _____ gallons of water _____ megawatts OR ____ BTUs of energy _____ gallons of fuel _____ organic material _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ gallons of water _____ megawatts OR ____ BTUs of energy _____ gallons of fuel _____ organic material _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ gallons of water conserved _____ megawatts OR ____ BTUs of energy _____ gallons of fuel _____ organic material _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ gallons of water _____ megawatts OR ____ BTUs of energy _____ gallons of fuel _____ organic material _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ gallons of water _____ megawatts OR ____ BTUs of energy _____ gallons of fuel _____ organic material _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ gallons of water conserved _____ megawatts OR ____ BTUs of energy _____ gallons of fuel _____ organic material _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know If other factors aside from the actions taken impacted these results ( e. g., production decreased by 50 percent, change in total sales occurred, or change in number of employees occurred), please indicate that here.

___________________________________________________________

Please briefly describe how you measured these results ( e. g., compared utility bills and after implementation) ____________________

If you provided cost savings, how were the savings calculated ( e. g., avoided purchasing costs, avoided labor costs)

_______________________ 8 19. Please identify any change in a POLLUTANT( S) EMISSIONS OR WASTE that resulted from the actions taken [ Insert time period]

as a result of participation in ( the partnership program). If available, please provide the amount of the reduction( s):

Activity Amount of Pollution or Waste Generated Before Implementing Activity Amount of Pollution or Waste Generated After Implementing Activity Total Change ( e. g., Change to low

VOC coating operations)

Capital Costs ________

Cost Savings _______

( if known) _____ pounds of solid waste _____ pounds of hazardous waste _____ pounds of air emissions _____ pounds of NOx _____ pounds of water pollutants/ nitrogen _____ pounds/ gallons of chemicals _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ pounds of solid waste _____ pounds of hazardous waste _____ pounds of air emissions _____ pounds of NOx _____ pounds of water pollutants/ nitrogen _____ pounds/ gallons of chemicals _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ pounds of solid waste _____ pounds of hazardous waste _____ pounds of air emissions _____ pounds of NOx _____ pounds of water pollutants/ nitrogen _____ pounds/ gallons of chemicals _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ pounds of solid waste _____ pounds of hazardous waste _____ pounds of air emissions _____ pounds of NOx _____ pounds of water pollutants/ nitrogen _____ pounds/ gallons of chemicals _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ pounds of solid waste _____ pounds of hazardous waste _____ pounds of air emissions _____ pounds of NOx _____ pounds of water pollutants/ nitrogen _____ pounds/ gallons of chemicals _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know _____ pounds of solid waste _____ pounds of hazardous waste _____ pounds of air emissions _____ pounds of NOx _____ pounds of water pollutants/ nitrogen _____ pounds/ gallons of chemicals _____ Other:___________________

_____ Don't Know If other factors aside from the actions taken impacted these results ( e. g., production decreased by 50 percent, change in total sales occurred, or change in number of employees occurred), please indicate that here. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___ Please briefly describe how you measured these results ( e. g., Compared disposal volume provided by hauler before and after implementation 9 If you provided cost savings, how were the savings calculated ( e. g., avoided disposal costs)

20. Please identify amount of materials REUSED that resulted from actions taken [ Insert time period] as a result of participation in ( the partnership program). If available, please provide the amount reused:

Activity Amount of Material Reused Before Implementing Activity Amount of Material Reused After Implementing Activity Total Amount Reused ( e. g., Donated computers for reuse by schools,

reused water for landscaping)

Capital Costs_________

Cost Savings ________

( if known) _____ computer monitors _____ computer CPUs _____ laptop computers _____ printers _____ cell phones _____ pounds of paper _____ pounds of glass _____ pounds of plastic _____ pounds of organic material _____ gallons of fuel _____ gallons of water _____ Other ______ Don't Know _____ computer monitors _____ computer CPUs _____ laptop computers _____ printers _____ cell phones _____ pounds of paper _____ pounds of glass _____ pounds of plastic _____ pounds of organic material _____ gallons of fuel _____ gallons of water _____ Other ______ Don't Know _____ computer monitors _____ computer CPUs _____ laptop computers _____ printers _____ cell phones _____ pounds of paper _____ pounds of glass _____ pounds of plastic _____ pounds of organic material _____ gallons of fuel _____ gallons of water _____ Other ______ Don't Know If other factors aside from the actions taken impacted these results ( e. g., production decreased by 50 percent, change in total sales occurred, or change in number of employees occurred), please indicate that here. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please briefly describe how you measured these results ( e. g., Compared disposal volume provided by hauler before and after implementation 10 If you provided cost savings, how were the savings calculated ( e. g., avoided disposal costs) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

21. Please identify amount of materials RECYCLED that resulted from actions taken [ Insert time period] as a result of participation in ( the partnership program). If available, please provide the amount recycled:

Activity Amount of Material Recycled Before Implementing Activity Amount of Material Recycled After Implementing Activity Total Amount Recycled ( e. g., Computers sent to recycling facilities, cans donated to school groups for recycling)

Capital Costs _______

Cost Savings _______

( if known) _____ computer monitors _____ computer CPUs _____ laptop computers _____ printers _____ cell phones _____ pounds of paper _____ pounds of glass _____ pounds of aluminum _____ pounds of plastic _____ pounds of organic material _____ gallons of fuel _____ gallons of water _____ Other _____ Don't Know _____ computer monitors _____ computer CPUs _____ laptop computers _____ printers _____ cell phones _____ pounds of paper _____ pounds of glass _____ pounds of aluminum _____ pounds of plastic _____ pounds of organic material _____ gallons of fuel _____ gallons of water _____ Other _____ Don't Know _____ computer monitors _____ computer CPUs _____ laptop computers _____ printers _____ cell phones _____ pounds of paper _____ pounds of glass _____ pounds of aluminum _____ pounds of plastic _____ pounds of organic material _____ gallons of fuel _____ gallons of water _____ Other ______ Don't Know If other factors aside from the actions taken impacted these results ( e. g., production decreased by 50 percent, change in total sales occurred, or change in number of employees occurred), please indicate that here. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please briefly describe how you measured these results ( e. g., Compared disposal volume provided by hauler before and after implementation If you provided cost savings, how were the savings calculated ( e. g., avoided disposal costs) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11 22. Please describe any other additional environmental benefits [ Insert time period] ( not already captured above) achieved by your organization as a result of participation in the partnership program ( e. g., wildlife benefits, greenhouse gas reductions, reduced school absences attributed to pesticide exposure):__________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

05/18/2007 05:01 PM

To

Eileen Pritchard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Bruce Schillo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marjorie Jones/RTP/USEPA/US, Mary
Henigin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>rosalina rodriguez, Lydia Wegman,
Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J
Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

draft chapter of ozone NAAQS RIA to forward to Rob Johnasson of OMB

Mary Henigin is out of the office today and indicated it would be OK for
me to forward this to you directly.  Please forward to Rob Johnasson at
OMB.

Rob,

We have the first chapter (benefits chapter with some appendices) of the
RIA ready for your review.  There few things I want to lay out before
you dig in.

First, it is important to note and recall that with some trepidation on
the part of others, I have directed an aggressive redesign of the RIA.
The focus of the redesign is to present what has changed in the
methodology since the PM NAAQS RIA analysis or other appropriate
reference (so in the case of the benefits chapter, the calculation of
ozone mortality benefits) and then reference the rest.  Thus, where in
the past we provided the derivation of the value of a statistical life
in the body the RIA, now we state the VSL in the year 2020 and refer the
reader to the PM NAAQS RIA for the background and derivation.  This will
allow you to review a much shorter document focusing on what has changed
in methodology and what the results are.  All chapters of the RIA are
designed in this fashion.  For example, those who have reviewed the
benefits chapter in the past are probably expecting to review roughly
150 pages not including the appendices.  The benefits chapter you have
to review is roughly 45 pages including tables.  The 2 appendices will
be familiar to those who reviewed the PM NAAQS RIA; the language is
virtually unchanged while the new results have been included.

Second, we have tried to be aggressive in providing you with the
methodologies and results in our briefings (including at least some time
for questions), so you should not be surprised by any of the
presentation in the chapter itself.  Certainly we welcome any comments
you have but I hope that our discussions have been clear enough that
there are no significant conceptual issues at this stage. As a result of
the detailed briefings, I am comfortable in supplying you with this
chapter even though much of the discussion in this chapter relies upon
references to other chapters in this RIA. Because these chapters have
yet to be finalized, you will not have available all the necessary
context to review the chapter but I think it is clear enough to proceed.

Third, I think it will be useful for you and the rest of the interagency
committee to start with the document entitled “overview of the
approach”.   In 2 pages it outlines our philosophical approach to the
design of the RIA.   I hope it will provide you some additional guidance
on how this chapter fits into the broader RIA structure.

Fourth, there is a special caveat to the language on ozone mortality.
We, in partnership with other offices in EPA, have negotiated the
presentation and language on the ozone mortality piece with OMB and have
reached agreement on these.  We believe that the presentation and
language in the chapter enclosed is faithful to that agreement.   Please
review this portion with that spirit in mind and let us know where there
errors or we have not been completely faithful to the agreement.

Fifth, there is a detail in the California results that our internal
review pointed out that we needed to address in this cover note.  We
estimated the 2020 benefits for California fully attaining a revised
alternate standard of 0.070 ppm incremental to the current standard of
0.084 ppm in two ways. In method A we assumed that two areas in
California projected to be in severe nonattainment for the current
standard would need only to meet the so-called "glide path" design value
targets in 2020 which are above the current standard of 0.084 ppm and
would be above an alternate standard of 0.070 ppm. In California, San
Joaquin and LA qualify for these glide path targets. In method B we
"forced" 2020 full attainment of 0.070 ppm incremental to 0.084 ppm in
all parts of California.

It is important to keep in mind that the glide path targets are
sensitive both to the analytical year and the severity of the projected
air quality problem. As such, we believe that the glide path targets are
a useful analytical construct that provide context to the total estimate
of national benefits. However, if the principal goal of this RIA is to
provide a best estimate of the costs and benefits of fully attaining an
alternative ozone standard incremental to the current standard, the full
attainment benefit estimate for California holds the most analytical
value for the attainment year of 2020.  This is clearly still an open
policy question and thus the presentation of the full attainment benefit
results may change pending the resolution of this question.

Finally, the ozone and PM incidence and valuation estimates use
difference confidence intervals. The next iteration of the benefits
chapter will use consistent confidence intervals across incidence and
valuation estimates.

I will be flowing chapters to you as soon as I feel they are ready.  I
expect that you will get several next week, hopefully a complete set by
the 25th or immediately following the holiday weekend.  For short term
planning purposes, I would ask you and the rest of the interagency
committee get comments back to us on this chapter and appendices by the
25th.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about the
above.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 June 25,2004 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: BEAD Dicofol Crop Usage FROM: Stephen Smearman, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Istanbul Yusuf, Acting Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Mika Hunter, Chemical Review Manager Special Review Branch Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Date: June 23, 2004 Per your request from the Dicofol use meeting on May 24th, 2004 BEAD is supplying a list of the crops that the usage review will be concerned with based on a BEAD review of USDA, California Department of Pesticide Registration and EPA proprietary data. It is BEAD's understanding that the dicofol treated crops labeled for use and of concern are fruit and nut tree crops and grapes and that the concerns are based on post application worker exposure issues ( pruning and harvesting). The criteria for determining whether or not a crop will be assessed is based on the percent crop treated acreage nationally. Crops with 5 percent or more of the acreage treated with dicofol will be assessed.

The following is a list of 9 crops found to have a percent crop treated of 5 percent or more. These include: citrus in Texas and Florida: grapefruit, orange, nectarines, tangelos, and tangerines; stone fruits: apricots, peaches, nectarines; tree nuts: pecans.

Crops from the list that will not be assessed because they had less than 5 percent of the crop treated include: apples and crabapples, grapes, lemon, lime, pears, cherries, plums, prunes, walnuts, pumpkins and watermelon.

Two crops, quince and kumquats did not appear in the data and therefore BEAD could not make a determination of their percent crop treated. USDA may be able to assist with data concerning usage for these two crops.

Please let me know if there are any questions concerning this information.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 19 (Monday, February 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7763-7764]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02072]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0621]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: National Air
Tours Safety Standards

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on June 24, 2020. The collection involves requirements in FAA
regulations that set safety and oversight rules for a broad variety of
sightseeing and commercial air tour flights to improve the overall
safety of commercial air tours by requiring all air tours to submit
information.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 3, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Ray by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0717.
    Title: National Air Tours Safety Standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on June 24, 2020 (85 FR 38010). FAA regulations set
safety and oversight rules for a broad variety of sightseeing and
commercial air tour flights to improve the overall safety of commercial
air tours by requiring all air tour operators to submit information.
The FAA uses the information it collects and reviews to ensure
compliance and adherence to regulations and, if necessary, take
enforcement action on violators of the regulations.
    Respondents: Approximately 13,751 respondents.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Burden varies per
respondent.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,182 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2021.
Sheri A. Martin,
Management & Program Analyst, FAA, Policy Integration Branch, AFS-270.
[FR Doc. 2021-02072 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79419-79421]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28045]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2022-0235]

Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information
Collection: Crash Causal Factors Program: Knowledge of Systems and
Processes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. This ICR relates to the
planned ``Study of Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash Causation,'' mandated
by Congress in the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA). To
plan and execute this study, FMCSA must collect information from the
States and local jurisdictions to understand their interest or ability
to participate in the study; existing crash data collection processes,
systems, and resources; and commercial motor vehicle (CMV) enforcement
funding mechanisms and sources.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before February
27, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2022-0235 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the docket, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``FAQ'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal website. If you want us to notify you
that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Stowe, Office of Analysis,
Research, and Technology/Research Division, DOT, FMCSA, West Building
6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 617-
386-6807; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260), was signed into law, appropriating $30
million to FMCSA to ``carry out [a] study of the cause[s] of large
truck crashes.'' On November 14, 2021, the President signed into law
the IIJA (Pub. L. 117-58), which contains requirements for a larger
study under section 23006, ``Study of Commercial Motor Vehicle Crash
Causation.'' The requirements under section 23006 define the scope of
the study to include all CMVs as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31132.
    Section 23006(b)(1) of the IIJA requires the Secretary to ``carry
out a comprehensive study to determine the causes of, and contributing
factors to, crashes that involve a commercial motor vehicle.'' Section
23006(b)(2) further requires the Secretary to:
    A. Identify data requirements, data collection procedures, reports,
and any other measures that can be used to improve the ability of
States and the Secretary to evaluate future crashes involving
commercial motor vehicles;
    B. Monitor crash trends and identify causes and contributing
factors; and
    C. Develop effective safety improvement policies and programs.
    To meet the requirements of section 23006, FMCSA is establishing a
Crash Causal Factors Program. Through this program, FMCSA will execute
a multi-phased study of crash causal factors, with Phase 1 focused on
fatal crashes involving Class 7/8 large trucks. This Phase 1 effort is
referred to as the Large Truck Crash Causal Factors Study. Future
phases of the study will focus on different CMV populations (such as
medium-duty trucks) or crash severities (e.g., serious injury crashes).
    Congress anticipated that FMCSA would need to consult with the
States and a variety of other experts when planning and executing the
study, as noted in section 23006(d), which reads: ``In designing and
carrying out the study, the Secretary may consult with individuals or
entities with expertise on--
    1. Crash causation and prevention;
    2. Commercial motor vehicles, commercial drivers, and motor
carriers, including passenger carriers;
    3. Highways and noncommercial motor vehicles and drivers;
    4. Federal and State highway and motor carrier safety programs;
    5. Research methods and statistical analysis; and
    6. Other relevant topics, as determined by the Secretary.''
    This information collection (IC) will collect data from Federal,
State, and

local highway and motor carrier safety programs. It will focus on
identifying and documenting States' and local jurisdictions' interest
in participating in the study; agreements that the States or
jurisdictions will require to participate in the study; existing crash
data collection processes, systems, tools, training, and quality
control processes; and CMV enforcement funding mechanisms and sources.

How the Agency Will Use Collected Information

    FMCSA will use collected information from four ICs:
 IC-1: Identifying Points of Contact
 IC-2: Sample Design; Partnerships and Coordination
 IC-3: Crash Data Collection
     IC-4: CMV Enforcement Resources and Funding
    Information collected under these four ICs will inform various
elements of the study plan, including the sample design, data
collection plans, participation agreements, resourcing plans, and
development of the study database. Below are additional details on how
FMCSA will use collected information to develop various study plan
elements.

IC-1: Identifying Points of Contact

    Before collecting information for ICs 2, 3, and 4, FMCSA will first
need to identify the appropriate points of contact in each State/
jurisdiction for the remaining IC components. Once FMCSA obtains
contact information from the States, the Agency will distribute a web-
based survey for IC-2, IC-3, and IC-4 to the relevant point of contact
in each State or jurisdiction. Below are additional details on how
FMCSA will use collected information to develop various study plan
elements.

IC-2: Sample Design; Partnerships and Coordination

    The original Large Truck Crash Causation Study conducted from 2001
through 2003 leveraged the sample design from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) National Automotive Sampling
System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS). NHTSA has since
developed a new Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS), which
replaces NASS CDS. Both NASS CDS and CISS are focused on crashes
involving passenger vehicles (i.e., passenger cars, light trucks, vans,
and utility vehicles). Neither sampling system was designed to collect
data on a representative sample of crashes involving CMVs. NHTSA
acknowledged this in its 2019 sample design and weighting documentation
for CISS, stating in a discussion on special crash populations, ``The
most efficient way to study a rare population is to design a special
study that solely targets that particular rare population.'' As a
result, FMCSA is planning to develop a new sample design specific to
crashes involving CMVs. However, FMCSA cannot simply select a random
sample of State and local jurisdictions to include in the sample
design. The Agency will need to identify an appropriate mix of State
and local jurisdictions to allow for a nationally representative sample
design. Participating States and local jurisdictions will be asked to
collect and share the required study data and troubleshoot study-
related issues as they arise. The information collected under IC-2 will
inform the sample design for this study. It will also provide important
information about State- or local jurisdiction-required participation
and data sharing agreements.

IC-3: Crash Data Collection

    FMCSA is planning to leverage existing State and local jurisdiction
resources (where possible) to collect required study data. This will be
a complex effort that will require substantial information sharing and
coordination between participating States/jurisdictions and FMCSA.
    Under IC-3, FMCSA will seek to learn more about the data elements
that State and local jurisdictions are already collecting; State and
local jurisdiction CMV crash reporting criteria and notification
systems; State and local jurisdiction crash data collection systems and
processes (e.g., what systems exist, who owns the system(s), the data
flow from roadside to the system, whether the system can interface with
other systems, etc.); existing crash data collection trainings offered
by the State/jurisdiction; existing State/jurisdiction crash data
collection tools; and crash data quality reviews that States and local
jurisdictions currently conduct. The Agency will use this information
to inform the study crash data collection plan and requirements for the
study database.

IC-4: CMV Enforcement Resources and Funding

    FMCSA must collect information from States and local jurisdictions
to understand whether existing commercial vehicle enforcement resources
can meet the study needs, and if not, to determine how much additional
funding or resources jurisdictions will require to collect the
necessary data. IC-4 will identify available CMV enforcement resources
within States/jurisdictions, funding sources for existing commercial
vehicle enforcement resources and activities (e.g., State-funded versus
FMCSA grant-funded), and whether there is a mechanism for the local
jurisdiction to receive study funding through FMCSA's grant programs
(i.e., as a sub-grantee). Information collected under IC-4 will also
inform FMCSA resourcing plans outside of the States/jurisdictions
(e.g., whether the Agency will need to hire third-party interviewers to
interview involved drivers, motor carriers, and witnesses).

Method of Collection

    FMCSA will collect the required information for IC-1 via email. For
ICs 2, 3, and 4, FMCSA will leverage a web-based survey application
combined with a document sharing platform (e.g., SharePoint, Huddle) or
email (if needed) to collect information. FMCSA believes that all
respondents will have State or local government-provided information
technology equipment (e.g., laptops, mobile devices, etc.) and internet
access; as such, the Agency believes electronic submissions will be
most cost-effective and efficient for respondents (as opposed to mail-
based submissions or some other means). FMCSA estimates that 100
percent of submissions will be electronic.

Results of Data Collection

    FMCSA does not plan to publish results from this data collection.
Results from this data collection, which will be descriptive and/or
qualitative in nature, will inform the study sample design,
participation agreements, data collection plans, resource plans, and
study database requirements. No complex analytical techniques will be
used. Final results from the overall study, once completed, will be
published in a final study report. Findings from the overall study will
ultimately inform the identification and development of countermeasures
to prevent crashes involving CMVs.
    As part of the Crash Causal Factors Program, this information
collection supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Safety.
    Title: Crash Causal Factors Program: Knowledge of Systems and
Processes.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-00XX.
    Type of Request: New ICR.
    Respondents: State and local Government employees (first-line
supervisors of police and detectives; police and sheriff's patrol
officers; general and operations managers; chief executives; computer
and information

systems managers; and computer and mathematical operations workers).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,160 respondents.
    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours per response for IC-1, 2.5
hours per response for IC-2, 3.83 hours per response for IC-3, 1.67
hours per response for IC-4.
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new ICR.
    Frequency of Response: Once for IC-1 and IC-2; no more than once
annually for IC-3 and IC-4.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 9,127.5 hours total, or 3,042.5
hours annually (215.5 annual hours for State computer and information
systems managers + 495 annual hours for local computer and information
systems managers + 293.5 annual hours for State police and sheriff's
patrol officers + 210 annual hours for local police and sheriff's
patrol officers + 112 annual hours for State first-line supervisors of
police and detectives + 705 annual hours for local first-line
supervisors of police and detectives + 42.5 annual hours for State
general and operations managers + 125 annual hours for local general
and operations managers + 42.5 annual hours for State chief executives
+ 125 annual hours for local chief executives + 181.5 annual hours for
State computer and mathematical operations workers + 495 annual hours
for local computer and mathematical operations workers = 3,042.5 annual
hours).
    Definitions: N/A.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this ICR.
    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.

Thomas P. Keane,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2022-28045 Filed 12-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P