[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 43198]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX13-1-000]

Watson Cogeneration Company; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 12, 2013, pursuant to sections 202(b), and
210 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824a(b), and 824i, Part 36 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18
CFR 36.1, Watson Cogeneration Company filed an application requesting
that the Commission direct (1) Southern California Edison (SCE) to
continue providing the existing physical interconnection to the Watson
facility; (2) direct SCE and California Independent System Operator
Corporation to execute the interconnection agreement; and (3) establish
the effective date of the interconnection agreement to be
contemporaneous with the future and to-be-established effective date of
the Watson Transition Power Purchase Agreement.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 12, 2013.

    Dated: July 12, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17283 Filed 7-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		3 March 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (27 February 2014) [DCN 0132]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

      This was the fifth meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions will help inform the upcoming planned supplemental Federal Register notice and will continue beyond the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA's Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

     EPA (Carey Johnston) started the meeting with a roll call. Mr. Johnston then led the technical workgroup in a discussion on electronic reporting for NPDES permitted CAFOs.

         *       Indiana (Tom Easterly) noted permitted CAFOs are different from other NPDES regulated entities in that CAFO owners and operators live onsite. He also shared his experience of what happened in Indiana when they transition away from papers files and started to electronically manage and share their permitted CAFO data. He noted that prior to the conversion most CAFO operators did not seem to invoke claims of confidential business information (CBI) as few people would come to the state office to request and photocopy these data. Once Indiana started to electronically manage and share their CAFO data they started seeing more and more CBI claims on CAFO data submissions as operators did not want their data and information to become widely available.

         *       Mr. Easterly suggested that EPA needs to make clear what data on CAFOs needs to be electronically collected and shared with EPA. For example, he suggested that states not be required to share state inspection data with EPA on unpermitted CAFOs that do not have any CWA violations.

         *       ECOS (Beth Graves) noted that when she worked in North Carolina that even big hog farms that were CAFOs had families living on-site. Texas and Arkansas also agreed that most CAFO owners live onsite and are reluctant to have their home address available on EPA's website. Mr. Easterly noted that CAFO operators don't want their home address in a government database and don't want people to bother them. He noted that EPA could consider requiring permitted CAFOs to only submit a limited amount of locational data.

         *       ACWA (Sean Rolland) suggested that another option for EPA to consider is to have states share permitted CAFO data with EPA at the watershed level and facility latitude and longitude coordinates.

      Mr. Johnston then provided an overview of Appendix A to the proposed rule. Appendix A is the minimum set of NPDES program data that NPDES-regulated facilities or other regulated entities would electronically submit to their authorized programs. It is an appendix to the proposed Part 127.

         *       Mr. Johnston noted that authorized programs that are the Initial Recipient of these data would electronically transfer these data to EPA. OECA worked with NPDES program experts from the Office of Water, Office of General Counsel, and EPA Regions to develop Appendix A. He noted that the purpose of Appendix A is to ensure that there is consistent and complete reporting nationwide, and to expedite the collection and processing of the data, thereby making it more timely, accurate, complete, useful, and transparent for everyone.

         *       Mr. Johnston noted that not all Appendix A data applies to all facilities (e.g., CAFO data wouldn't apply to POTWs) and that reporting frequency varies based on the type of data (e.g., permit issuance would likely be every five years; DMR data may be monthly). He described the process the EPA technical workgroups used to create Appendix A.
               o          Identify current candidate reports and information from states and NPDES regulated entities that are practical to standardize and electronically process, and have important value to the permitting, compliance and enforcement program, and the public.
               o          Identify the required data elements for each candidate data flow and report based on the CWA or existing EPA regulations or policy.
               o          Minimize the number of data elements to create efficiencies without losing the utility of the data.

         *       Mr. Johnston provided an example of how EPA converted regulatory requirements to Appendix A. He noted that stormwater discharges, including discharges from municipal separate storm sewers (MS4s), industrial facilities and construction sites, can have a significant impact on water quality and that EPA has identified this as a area of focus for the NPDES program.

         *       In previous regulatory efforts EPA create reporting requirements for MS4s (annual for Phase I MS4s and year 2 and 4 of the permit term for Phase II MS4s). Below is an excerpt from EPA's existing regulations that require MS4s to submit these reports:
               o          Phase 1 [122.42(c)(6)]: "A summary describing the number and nature of enforcement actions, inspections, and public education programs."
               o          Phase II [122.34(g)(3)]: " Results of information collected and analyzed, including monitoring data, if any during the reporting period."

         *       He noted that EPA used this regulatory language to develop the following data elements to capture the enforcement actions take by the MS4 program report.
               o          Number of Notice of Violations
               o          Number of Administrative Fines
               o          Number of Stop Work Orders
               o          Number of Civil Penalties
               o          Number of Criminal Actions
               o          Number of Administrative Orders

         *       He stated that these data (and other data from the MS4 program report) will help states, EPA, and the public better understand the performance of each MS4 program and that this is lacking in the current paper-based system.

         *       Texas (Kim Wilson) suggested electronic reporting may not be appropriate for the MS4 sector. She noted that the structured MS4 data in Appendix A does not give enough information to the authorized program on the effectiveness of the MS4 program. She stated that each regulated MS4 operator needs to submit a detailed analysis and that this analysis needs to be reviewed by trained state employees in order to determine the effectiveness of each MS4 program. She noted that restricting the MS4 program report to structured data will likely cause confusion with the public and more problems for the authorized state NPDES programs. Mr. Johnston noted that an important part of presenting information to the public is to provide the proper context on how to interpret and use the data. He noted that EPA tries to do this with its online tools like ECHO.

         *       Mr. Johnston noted that Appendix A is the minimum set of data that needs to be electronically collected and shared between EPA and the states and that states can collect more data and in any format that they wish (e.g., PDFs). He also noted that EPA's Office of Wastewater Management is encouraging states and MS4 operators to better define their MS4 program commitment in quantifiable and measureable goals.

         *       Arkansas (Teresa Marks) stated that providing Appendix A data to EPA without context will likely cause more problems for authorized NPDES programs and permittees. She asked EPA to explain the benefits of electronically collecting these data and sharing them with the public. Mr. Johnston referred the workgroup to the many benefits described in the proposed rule. These include giving everyone a more complete picture of water pollution, which includes an inventory of: (1) NPDES-permitted facilities;  (2) compliance monitoring data (e.g., DMRs, program reports) from all sectors of the NPDES program; (3) violations identified through inspections and other compliance monitoring activities by EPA, states, tribes, and territories; and (4) information on enforcement actions and associated penalties. He also noted that it would be easier to integrate permit and water quality assessment information through better linkage of facility locational data (e.g., latitude and longitude data) and information on the receiving waters (e.g., receiving waterbody name for permitted feature).

         *       Arkansas (Teresa Marks) noted that "we really need to evaluate what we really need at the national level."

         *       Oklahoma (Shellie Chard-McClary) agreed with Arkansas and suggested that EPA reduce the number data elements because of the limited resources on states for capturing these data. She suggested that EPA provide an analysis showing how each of the Appendix A data elements line up against EPA's PCS Policy (WENDB) and ICIS-NPDES. Mr. Johnston stated that EPA has this analysis and will share it with the states.

         *       Alabama asked if EPA could cite the ICR that provides the authorization to collect NPDES program data from the states. Mr. Johnston cited the supporting statement for the consolidated NPDES program ICR and pretreatment program ICR, which list the burden associated with collecting and managing NPDES program data and sharing these data with EPA.

Next Steps

      EPA agreed to summarize the meeting notes as well as summarize and compile a few examples of public comments on a topic schedule for discussion. EPA will share these materials with the technical workgroup in advance of the next weekly meeting.
     State Technical Workgroup Meeting  -  NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
                               27 February 2014

      1pm		Introduction/Roll Call

      1:05		Finish Discussion of Comments on CAFO Sector

      1:35		Overview of Appendix A

      2:10		Schedule

      2:20		Solicitation of Topics for Next Meeting

      2:30		End of Call

Quick Reminder
   *    The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

   *    There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

   *    There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not achieve consensus.

   *    Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members
                                 Main Contact
                             State or Organization
                              Main Contact Email
                         State/Org. Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Elisa Willard
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Beth Graves
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Lee Garrigan
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Robert Wither
                                      NY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Walker
                                      OK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Sean Furjanic
                                      PA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Nancy Kmet
                                      WA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes

Tab le 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members
                                     Name
                                  EPA Office
                                     Email
                               Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Steve Chester
                                    OECA/IO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                   Lisa Lund
                                  OECA/OC/IO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                John Dombrowski
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Andy Hudock
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Rochele Kadish
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Carey Johnston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jackie Clark
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Chaudet
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Chuck Freeman
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Aditi Prabhu
                                    OGC/WLO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Glynis Hill
                                 OP/ORPM/PRAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13727-13729]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-42-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Scoping Period Requesting
Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed; Ogden to Ventura A-
Line Abandonment and Capacity Replacement Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Ogden to Ventura A-Line Abandonment
and Capacity Replacement Project involving abandonment of pipeline
facilities by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Boone,
Hancock, and Webster Counties, Iowa, and construction and operation of
facilities in Wright County, Iowa. The Commission will use this
environmental document in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This
gathering of public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental
document on the important environmental issues. Additional information
about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA
Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2022. Comments may be
submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments
are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on January 21, 2022, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP22-42-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that
eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle
eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these
matters.
    Northern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow

these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff
available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under
the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
42-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These
instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification
and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Northern proposes to abandon 82.7 miles of 20-inch-diameter
pipeline and appurtenances on its IAM60601 A-line system (referred to
as the A-Line). Northern also requests authorization to construct and
operate a 6.04-mile-long extension of its 30-inch-diameter Ogden to
Ventura IAM60604 D-line (referred to as the D-Line) and appurtenances
to replace the capacity associated with the abandoned A-line. According
to Northern, its project would enhance the safety, reliability,
security, and operational efficiency of its pipeline system.
    The Ogden to Ventura A-Line Abandonment and Capacity Replacement
Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Disconnecting the 20-inch-diameter A-Line near the Ogden
compressor station in Boone County, Iowa;
     disconnecting the 20-inch-diameter A-Line at the Eagle
Grove branch line take-off in Wright County, Iowa;
     installing temporary compression at three discrete
locations (one each in Boone, Webster, and Hancock Counties) to
evacuate gas from the A-Line to the IAM60602 B-line;
     disconnecting the 20-inch-diameter A-Line at the Ventura
compressor station in Hancock County, Iowa; and
     installing a pipeline extension of the D-Line consisting
of approximately 6.04 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline and an
associated aboveground pig receiver in Wright County, Iowa.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact
FERC at [email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 152
acres of land for construction of the D-Line aboveground facilities and
the pipeline. Following construction, Northern would maintain about 37
acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the
remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. All of
the proposed pipeline routes parallel existing pipeline, utility, or
road rights-of-way. Abandonment in-place of existing facilities would
disturb about 14 acres for temporary workspace. All workspaces utilized
for facility abandonment would be restored and revert to former uses.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation
of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:

 Geology and soils;
 water resources and wetlands;
 vegetation and wildlife;
 threatened and endangered species;
 cultural resources;
 land use;
 air quality and noise; and
 reliability and safety.

    Commission staff have already identified several issues that
deserve attention based on public comments, and a preliminary review of
the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by
Northern. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your
comments and our analysis:

 Impacts on air quality from temporary compression;
 impacts on agricultural land; and final disposition of the
pipeline.

    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open up an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \3\ and the

Commission's natural gas environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant email notification
when the environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\4\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\5\ The environmental document for this
project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP22-42-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments. OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: March 4, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05052 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 2050 0139 " REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS UNDER EPA'S WASTEWISE PROGRAM"

August 2005 CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents and NAICS Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Partner Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Annual Assessment Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Endorser Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED C AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Partner Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Annual Assessment Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Endorser Registration Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Annual Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Exhibit 2: Annual Estimated Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 TABLES Table 1: Bottom Line Burden and Cost to Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 2: Bottom Line Burden and Cost to EPA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Methodology for WasteWise Multi Stage Statistical Analysis Attachment B: Partner Registration Form Attachment C: Annual Assessment Form Attachment D: Endorser Registration Form 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Request This Information Collection Request ( ICR) is entitled " ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Agency information collection activities: Proposed collection; Comment Request; Reporting and RECORD KEEPING Requirements Under EPA's WasteWise Program," ICR number 2050 0139.

1( b) Short Characterization This submission is intended to satisfy the terms of clearance placed on the 2004 ICR approval. The ICR was approved for one year, provided that WasteWise subject its program evaluation methodology ( described below) to peer review, and keep OMB informed of its peer review activities during this time period. After an initial meeting with OMB in March, EPA began to initiate the peer review process, but it is still ongoing. The results will be presented to OMB as soon as they are available. In the meantime, we would ask that an additional extension be granted, so that WasteWise can continue to collect data from its partners without a lapse in service.

The WasteWise program is an EPA voluntary program that encourages companies, trade associations, non profit organizations, state/ local/ tribal/ federal governments, schools, colleges, and universities to engage in waste reduction activities. WasteWise focuses on waste reductionCwhich includes waste prevention, recycling collection, and purchasing or manufacturing recycled content products. The program was developed and is managed by EPA's Office of Solid Waste ( OSW), Municipal, Industrial, and Special Waste Division ( MISWD). In return for their voluntary participation in the program, WasteWise partners receive:

° A well developed approach to program design, implementation, and documentation of results that can be implemented within a variety of organizations. ° Recognition opportunities through an annual awards program and being featured on the WasteWise Web site and in WasteWise and other EPA publications. ° Opportunities to network with individuals implementing waste reduction activities in a variety of industry sectors. ° Helpline, account representative, and list server services that assist with the identification of waste reduction opportunities, setting measurable goals, and researching technical questions. ° Access to a library and Web site of technical assistance resources to assist in achieving waste reduction goals.

An organization's decision to participate in WasteWise is completely voluntary. Participation begins with the completion and submission to EPA of a Partner Registration Form or Endorser Registration Form ( the WasteWise Endorser Program will be discussed later in this document) that provides EPA with general organizational information and the facilities committed to WasteWise. It is signed by a senior official that has authority to commit his/ her organization to the program.

EPA streamlined the registration and reporting processes as part of its 2004 ICR effort in an attempt to decrease the burden on WasteWise partners. Previously, partners were asked to register, set goals within six months, and then quantify waste reduction results each year. The new structure, requires partners to register and designate priorities, and submit one other form, the Annual Assessment Form within two months. On this form, partners submit baseline waste reduction data and waste reduction goals. Organizations have broad flexibility in designing their goals, which are now fully incorporated as part of the annual assessment process. EPA not only believes that by having partners submit goals via the annual page 2 assessment form the related work will be less burdensome, but that this new structure will also foster more effective waste reduction activities.

EPA asks new partners to spend time up front in establishing a solid foundation for WasteWise initiatives and allots two months for partners to provide baseline data and goals via the Annual Assessment Form. The first year of membership is the only time during which partners are asked to submit baseline data. By having this data to analyze, EPA will be better suited to determine how the program influences its new partners' waste reduction achievements by comparing the baseline data ( measurements from before initiating WasteWise related efforts) to what the partner accomplishes once part of the program.

Unfortunately, there is not a way for WasteWise to obtain baseline waste reduction data for its existing partners; consequently, EPA developed a means to determine how WasteWise influences its partners' waste reduction efforts. As part of the Agency's continued interest in examining the success of the program, WasteWise developed an econometric methodology that estimates the amount of its partners' waste prevention and recycling achieved, which is attributable to the WasteWise program ( see Attachment A). This model, which relies on advanced econometric and statistical techniques, will allow EPA to estimate the amount of waste prevention and recycling performed by existing and non reporting partners, formulate estimations on a material specific basis allowing EPA to estimate the associated global climate protection benefits, and address concerns regarding the use of different methods by which partners calculate waste prevention and recycling achievements.

As mentioned above, the one year extension granted to EPA as a result of the 2004 ICR renewal was contingent on a peer review being completed on the econometric method described in Attachment A, including the validity of methods to construct baselines. In order to fulfill this condition, EPA has commissioned a peer review of the method.

To account for the program's activities, WasteWise asks that its partners report on their waste reduction progress by March 31 of each year. ( Established partners are asked to submit goals and waste reduction data on an annual basis.) Previously, partners were asked to submit quantified results for the amount of waste prevented and recycled, the amount of recycled content products purchased, and/ or the increase in recycled materials used in the manufacturing process. In the new, less burdensome structure, partners are asked to submit quantified results via the Annual Assessment Form in any of the following areas: the amount of waste prevented and recycled, the amount of recycled content products purchased ( and the percent of recycled content in those products), recycled materials used in manufacturing processes, revenues from waste reduction activities, and avoided costs due to waste reduction activities. Organizations can easily track and record these new categories, which will allow partners ( and the Agency) to assess the effectiveness of their efforts.

At this time, EPA also asks partners to submit revised annual goals. In the past, separate from the annual report, EPA asked partners to submit a certain number of goals ( which were valid for three years) in specific waste reduction areas. As part of this new, more manageable procedure, EPA asks partners to submit goals on an annual basisCwhile they are reviewing their annual achievements. Furthermore, to allow for more individualized treatment, partners can set any number of goals for any area of waste reduction ( e. g., waste prevention, recycling, buying recycled content products, and manufacturing recycledcontent products).

EPA collects this information in hard copy form or electronically and then enters and stores it in the WasteWise Information Exchange System database ( WIES). EPA uses the information collected under the WasteWise program to track the activities of individual organizations participating in the program, page 3 recognize partner accomplishments in the three program areas, and identify effective waste reduction strategies to share with others. Recognizing partner achievements is important to help EPA spur other partners on to reduce more waste. Sharing effective waste reduction strategies with others is a fundamental objective of the WasteWise program.

The WasteWise program currently has approximately 1,400 partners. OSW expects WasteWise membership to increase by 100 partners during each year of this ICR. For a new partner joining WasteWise, the information collection activities are estimated on average to cost each organization approximately $ 2,266 in the first year and $ 2,207 for subsequent years. EPA does, however, expect many organizations to recognize substantial cost savings, typically more than offsetting the above costs, through the implementation of their waste reduction initiatives reported under WasteWise. ( EPA evidence suggests that savings of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars is not unusual for a large corporation.)

EPA has also continued the additional voluntary component to the WasteWise program, called the WasteWise Endorser Program. Various organizations including trade associations, membership organizations, and federal/ state/ local governments that become WasteWise endorsers commit to 1) recruiting their members and other constituents to become WasteWise partners and 2) to providing ongoing promotional or technical waste reduction information. Participation in the WasteWise Endorser Program involves the submission of only one form, the Endorser Registration Form. This one page form provides general contact information, the number of business members the organization has, the primary business sectors represented, and the activities that the endorser will conduct. EPA collects this information and enters it into WIES. EPA tracks this information for three main purposes: to establish participation in the program, to understand the activities being undertaken by each endorser, and to identify opportunities to assist them in their efforts ( e. g., providing materials or a speaker).

The WasteWise Endorser Program currently has over 200 endorsers. EPA expects membership in the WasteWise Endorser Program to increase by 25 endorsers during each year of this ICR. The information collection activities will translate into a one time cost to each individual organization of approximately $ 601 during its first year in the program.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection As stated by Congress ( 42 U. S. C. # 13101 13103. 1990) and EPA ( The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. 1989 530 SW 89 019. pp. 16 21), there are significant opportunities for businesses to reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost effective changes in production, operation, and raw material use. The Agency has developed a hierarchy asserting that waste should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible; waste that cannot be prevented should be recycled where possible. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 directs the EPA Administrator to " facilitate the adoption of source reduction techniques by businesses..., foster the exchange of information regarding source reduction techniques..., and [ foster] the provision of technical assistance to businesses ( 42 U. S. C. # 13101 13109. 1990)." Furthermore, the Resource Conservation Challenge, initiated in 2002, urges Americans to increase the United States' recycling rate to 35 percent. The WasteWise program and associated information collection activities will assist the Agency in meeting the above stated goals by facilitating the prevention and recycling of wastes by participating businesses.

More specifically, EPA needs to collect initial information in the Partner Registration Form to formally establish participation in the WasteWise program, to obtain general information on new page 4 WasteWise partners, to identify the facilities committed to implementing the WasteWise initiatives, and to gain insight on new partners' areas of interests/ priorities.

EPA also needs to collect the information in the Annual Assessment Form to better understand and assist each partner's waste reduction efforts and progress and to identify effective waste reduction strategies to share with others. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, by compiling new partners' baseline waste reduction data, WasteWise will be able to more accurately determine the influence that WasteWise has on its partners' waste reduction efforts.

For the WasteWise Endorser Program, EPA needs to collect initial information in the Endorser Registration Form to establish participation in the Endorser Program and to obtain general contact and membership information, as applicable. EPA also needs to collect the information on recruitment and ongoing activities to remain apprized of endorser activities to bring new partners into the WasteWise program.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The information collected by the WasteWise program is not designed or intended to support regulatory decision making by OSW or other EPA offices. These data are voluntarily reported by individual WasteWise partners. The data represent partners' estimates of progress they make towards waste reduction goals, including waste prevention, recycling collection, and buying or manufacturing recycledcontent products activities. EPA does not conduct facility audits of WasteWise partners, however, a quality assurance/ quality control process is in place to review partner reports for adherence to goals. The data are published for the purpose of sharing information about WasteWise partners' programs and to encourage other organizations to explore and implement waste reduction activities.

Specifically, OSW uses the information collected in the Partner Registration Form to update WIES, which contains information on WasteWise participants, initiate contact with the primary person in charge of the member's WasteWise initiatives, and prepare a list of WasteWise partners. The information in WIES is used to track organization status, prepare reports and mailing lists, and determine the focus of future WasteWise outreach materials ( based on partners' identified priorities).

OSW uses the information collected in the Annual Assessment Forms to record the participant's activities and progress in WIES; identify, develop, and disseminate case studies and other materials on key waste reduction practices ( e. g., to be published in the WasteWise Update or to be recommended to partners seeking new waste reduction goals); identify areas where additional technical assistance or information would be useful for individual partners or more generally for program participants ( e. g., high recycling figures for corrugated paperboard might indicate an opportunity for transport packaging reductions); recognize organizations with significant waste reduction accomplishments at national recognition ceremonies; organize the information in order to prepare and publish a summary report each year; evaluate opportunities for improving the WasteWise program, and measure the program's progress ( either based on the baseline data or using the econometric methodology).

OSW uses the general information collected in the Endorser Registration Form to update WIES, which contains information on WasteWise endorsers; initiate contact with the primary person in charge of the endorser's WasteWise initiatives; and prepare a list of WasteWise endorsers. The information in WIES is used to track organization status and prepare reports and mailing lists. OSW uses the activity page 5 information collected in the form to learn about promotional activities and share successful strategies with other endorsers as appropriate and offer assistance for these activities as necessary, such as providing materials for mailings or speakers for conferences.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication The information to be obtained under this ICR has not been collected by EPA or any other federal agency. Other nonfederal organizations sponsor voluntary programs that promote recycling collection or buying recycled products, but do not offer a comprehensive waste reduction program that emphasizes the cost saving and climate benefits of waste reduction. OSW is continuing to work with these non EPA programs, such as the National Recycling Coalition's ( NRC's) Source Reduction Forum and the Buy Recycled Business Alliance ( BRBA), to ensure that efforts are not duplicative. For example, WasteWise previously coordinated with BRBA to produce a national satellite forum on buying recycled content products.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB EPA published a Federal Register notice on June 30, 2005 ( 70 FR 37818) seeking public comment on this information collection. No comments were received.

3( c) Consultations In evaluating the new Registration Form and Annual Assessment Form, as part of the ICR renewal process, WasteWise staff conducted personal interviews with program partners to discuss the new format and requested information. Interviews were conducted with the following seven WasteWise partners:

Albert Fralinger 856 224 1638 Public Service Enterprise Group Bradford Hill 212 363 3180 Evelyn Hill Inc.

John O'Donoghue 585 588 4741 Eastman Kodak Company Tom Watson 206 296 4481 King County, WA Don Curran 501 329 2901 Virco Mfg. Corporation John Bernardo 208 395 4990 Albertsons, Inc.

Edward Newman 740 593 0231 Ohio University Facilities Management Overall, these partners (" participating partners") seemed pleased with the proposed forms. John Bernardo, from Albertsons, Inc., summed up the reaction of many participating partners: " The forms are so much more succinct, easier to fill out, and all in all an improvement to the registration and reporting processes." He also stated, " The previous forms seemed overwhelming, and actually deterred me from joining the program ( even while being marketed by WasteWise and by Seydel Companies) for over a year." Some other comments received include: page 6 ° " The new forms will decrease our reporting time to WasteWise by about half." ° " The new forms are almost too easy to fill out." ° " The new forms provide less pressure from EPA on goals in specific areas and provide more options to partners to tailor their individual programs."

Based on the feedback we received, it seems that the participating partners believed the Registration Form will have a positive effect on the program. Many participating partners appreciated the new section of the form which requests partners consider some of their top waste reduction priorities, making them think about activities right from the start. The participating partners thought the new Annual Assessment Form, which combines the old goals form and the old annual reporting form, was also an effective method to report achievements and reduce their reporting burden. The participating partners agreed that these forms are a nice change for the WasteWise program.

WasteWise continues to listen to its partners' feedback. Many years ago, partners suggested that WasteWise provide an electronic reporting option. In response to these requests, WasteWise continues to offer online and downloadable forms, and improves these tools when necessary. ( Although the electronic options reduce paper generation, they do not significantly impact respondent burden hours.) Moreover, as part of this ICR process, WasteWise received comments on the Registration Form and the Annual Assessment Form, which were taken into consideration when finalizing the forms. Based on the feedback EPA received, the Agency recalculated the burden hours for the Registration Form and the Annual Assessment Form mainly because the original two forms ( goals and reporting) were combined and the program is now asking partners for different information, such as specific waste reduction data.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The Partner Registration Form and Endorser Registration Form are one time information submittals for organizations that wish to participate in the WasteWise program as endorsers and/ or partners. Partners submit the Annual Assessment Form with waste reduction baseline data and goals within two months of registering. The same form is submitted again by March 31 of each year, this time with the partner's annual waste reduction data. Requesting this report on a less frequent basis would hinder Agency efforts to generate relevant and timely case studies and success stories that are helpful to participants. It also would hinder the ability of the Agency to review the activities by individual organizations and the program as a whole and to gain the information necessary to publicly recognize significant partner waste reduction activities.

3( e) General Guidelines All of the collection activities described within this ICR fall within OMB's General Guidelines.

3( f) Confidentiality No information collected by EPA under the WasteWise program comprises confidential business information.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature are asked in any of the three forms.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED page 7 4( a) Respondents and NAICS Codes The WasteWise program was initially targeted to the Fortune 500 manufacturing companies and the Fortune 500 service companies. During the period covered by this ICR, however, WasteWise will continue to focus its marketing efforts on a broader audience, including medium to large size businesses, universities, and federal/ state/ local/ tribal governments. While WasteWise actively promotes the program to a smaller subset of these groups, the program is open to all companies, trade associations, nonprofit organizations, schools, colleges, universities, and federal/ state/ local/ tribal governments.

Due to the broad universe of eligible WasteWise partners, a relevant list of NAICS codes would include virtually every business area contained in the NAICS code manual. Therefore, it is not practical to include such a comprehensive list of affected organizations in this supporting statement.

The WasteWise Endorser Program initially targeted more than 100 trade associations across numerous industry sectors. The program is, however, open to all trade associations, membership organizations, and federal/ state/ local/ tribal organizations in this supporting statement.

4( b) Information Requested Once a prospective partner organization reviews the WasteWise materials and decides to join the program, it submits a Partner Registration Form ( Attachment B). Within six months of registering, new partners are asked to complete an Annual Assessment Form ( Attachment C) to provide WasteWise with baseline waste reduction data and goals. By March 1 of each year, partners that joined the program by August 1 of the preceding year report on the progress made toward achieving their goals in the Annual Assessment Form.

Organizations that join the WasteWise Endorser Program need only submit the Endorser Registration Form ( Attachment D) at the time they join.

Partner Registration Form Program participants complete and submit to EPA a standard, one page Partner Registration Form that provides basic organization information.

( i) Data items:

The reporting items include:

$ How the member heard about the WasteWise Program ( choose from a list of nine).

$ Organization name, parent organization name ( if applicable), and industry sector.

$ Name, title, address, phone number, fax number, and email address of the partner's primary contact person.

$ The facilities to be included in the initial waste reduction efforts ( e. g., corporate page 8 headquarters only, regional facilities, all plants, etc.).

$ Approximate number of employees at the joining facilities.

$ Waste reduction priorities that they will focus on as part of their membership in WasteWise.

$ Signature, name, and title of senior official and the date signed.

( ii) Respondent activities:

Participants conduct the following activities in order to complete and submit the Partner Registration Form:

$ Review the WasteWise brochure, form, and other necessary materials.

$ Decide which facilities will join the WasteWise Program.

$ Select a primary contact person for the WasteWise Program.

$ Provide feedback to WasteWise on the organization's waste reduction priorities.

$ Complete the Partner Registration Form, including obtaining the signature of a senior official.

$ Send the completed form to EPA via fax, mail, or online.

Annual Assessment Form Program participants complete and submit to EPA a standard, two page Annual Assessment Form that describes the participant's waste reduction achievements and new goals. The Annual Assessment Forms contain both descriptive information and quantified results. Additionally, it is important to note that this form serves two purposes by allowing:

$ New partners to provide waste reduction baseline data and goals to EPA ( within six months of registering to be part of the program).

$ Existing partners to report on the previous year's waste reduction activities by March 1 of each year, and provide new goals to EPA.

( i) Data items:

The reporting items include:

$ Section I: Participant Information B Organization name. page 9 B Name, phone number, and email address of the partner's primary contact person.

B The facilities included in the report ( e. g., corporate headquarters only, regional facilities, all plants, etc.) and the approximate number of employees.

$ Section II: Current Waste Reduction Activities B Total amount of municipal solid waste disposed during the reporting year.

 B Dates that the report covers ( one year's worth of time).

For all of the previous year's waste reduction activities, partners provide the following for both waste prevention and recycling activities:

B Listing of the product or material.

B Description of the waste prevention/ recycling activity.

B The volume prevented/ recycled.

 B Goals for the upcoming year.

$ Section III: Cost Savings/ Revenue B Total waste prevention revenue.

B Total recycling revenue.

B Total avoided purchasing costs due to waste prevention.

B Total avoided disposal costs due to recycling and waste prevention.

$ Section IV: Buying or Manufacturing Recycled Products B Listing of the product or material.

B Current recycled content percent.

 Previous recycled content percent.

 Current units purchased.

$ Section V: Comments B The partner may attach/ share additional information ( e. g. external promotion, employee education, program comments, etc.). page 10 B The partner may attach/ share additional information regarding their measurement methodology and factors that may affect their ability to reliably determine the effect of the program.

$ Signature and title of principal contact and date.

WasteWise assumes that this information is kept as a Common Business Practice by companies implementing internal waste reduction programs. Therefore, burden associated with recordkeeping is not included in this ICR.

( ii) Respondent activities:

Participants conduct the following activities in order to complete and submit the Annual Assessment Form:

$ Collect and review records to assess progress during the reporting year.

$ Conduct a waste assessment or account for annual waste reduction efforts.

$ Review records to assess waste reduction progress.

$ Set new waste reduction goals.

$ Complete the Annual Assessment Form, including obtaining the signature of the principal contact.

$ Send the completed form to EPA via fax, mail, or online.

$ Respond to EPA questions to clarify data.

Endorser Registration Form Endorsers complete and submit to EPA a standard, one page Endorser Registration Form that provides basic association information and describes recruitment and promotional activities.

( i) Data items:

The reporting items include:

$ Organization name.

$ Name, title, address, phone number, fax number, and email address of the endorser's principal contact person.

$ Approximate number of business members in the organization.

$ List of primary business sectors represented by the organization ( e. g., NAICS codes).

$ Description of proposed recruitment campaign to encourage the organization's member organizations or constituents ( e. g., local businesses) to become WasteWise partners. page 11 $ Description of proposed ongoing activities to promote WasteWise and/ or provide information to organization members on waste reduction strategies ( if unknown, the organization may provide this information to EPA at a later date).

$ Signature, name, and title of senior official and the date signed.

( ii) Respondent activities:

Endorsers conduct the following activities in order to complete and submit the Endorser Registration Form:

$ Review the WasteWise Endorser Program information, form, and overall WasteWise Program information.

$ Determine an initial recruitment activities.

$ Consider ongoing promotional activities.

$ Select a primary contact person for the WasteWise Endorser Program.

$ Complete the Endorser Registration Form, including obtaining the signature of a senior official.

$ Send the completed form to EPA via fax, mail, or online.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED C AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities Under the WasteWise program, EPA engages in the following activities related to the three forms:

Partner Registration Form $ Distribute Partner Registration Forms to potential participants.

$ Answer questions posed by potential participants regarding membership in the program.

$ Receive completed forms, record/ enter information into a database, and place a welcome call to the new member.

$ Mail new partner packets to participants.

Annual Assessment Form $ Distribute Annual Assessment Forms to new partners for their six month response ( which includes waste reduction baseline data and goals) and to existing partners for their annual reporting to WasteWise.

$ Develop measurement and tracking tools to assist partners in the reporting process. page 12 WasteWise recently updated its Online Toolkit by updating many of the tools found in EPA's " Business Guide for Reducing Solid Waste" and making them available online. These tools will help organizations calculate their waste reduction baseline, track their waste reduction efforts, and much more.

$ Maintain a tracking system and develop/ revise standard data reports.

$ Answer questions regarding the Annual Assessment Form.

$ Receive and review the form for consistency and completeness and place any follow up calls necessary.

B Reported Data Quality. The assigned WasteWise account representative reviews the reporting form submitted by each partner for which he or she is responsible. As part of this review, representatives determine whether the reported results appear consistent with the volumes reported in previous years by the partner for similar activities. If a representative notices a report where the numbers are exactly the same or appear to be cumulative rather than simply for the current reporting year period, the representative calls or emails the partner to clarify the reported results. For reported amounts above 1,000,000 pounds, the representative contacts the partner to confirm the order of magnitude and to prevent any errors of interpretation. For smaller amounts, representatives look to see if the results appear consistent with the volumes reported in previous years for similar activities. In addition, reports are reviewed to ensure that only acceptable WasteWise materials and activities are included in the amounts reported. Only after this thorough review is completed does WasteWise include the data in the WasteWise program totals.

$ Record/ enter information into WIES and conduct quality assurance/ quality control ( QA/ QC) on data entry.

B Data Entry Quality. As a second level of quality control, a select group of individuals are assigned to review all reports after they have been entered into the WasteWise database. These individuals work with the account representatives to correct and track any entries where a large number does not appear to have been confirmed or where numerical data have been entered incorrectly or coded improperly.

B WAste Reduction Model ( WARM) Data Entry Quality. As a third check of the numbers, WasteWise account representatives review WARM results to ensure the information from the partner's WasteWise report has been correctly captured in this spreadsheet.

$ Develop and make publicly available an annual summary of program activities and case studies of significant accomplishments.

Endorser Registration Form $ Distribute Endorser Registration Forms to potential endorsers. page 13 $ Answer questions posed by potential endorsers regarding membership in the program.

$ Receive completed forms, record/ enter information into a database, and place a welcome call to the new endorser.

$ Mail new endorser packets to participants.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA uses a telephone system, personal computers, and database software. EPA ensures the reasonableness and completeness of collected information by reviewing each submittal. EPA enters the information obtained from the three forms into a database. The Agency uses software to store and evaluate data obtained from Annual Assessment Forms. The data are used to identify prominent waste reduction strategies, to develop and publish an annual summary of program activities and case studies of significant accomplishments, and gear the program's priorities for the upcoming year.

EPA currently offers all forms in hard copy and electronically. Electronic forms do not have a significant impact on respondent or Agency burden.

The data collected under this ICR are voluntarily reported by individual WasteWise partners. The data represent partners' estimates of progress they made towards waste reduction goals ( in areas such as waste prevention, recycling collection, and buying or manufacturing recycled content products). EPA does not conduct facility audits of WasteWise partners; however, a QA/ QC process is in place to review partner reports for adherence to goals. The data are published for the purpose of sharing information about WasteWise partners' programs and to encourage other organizations to explore and implement waste reduction activities. As previously mentioned, WasteWise developed a new econometric measurement tool to accurately determine the program's accomplishments for existing partners and will use the baseline data to assess progress for new partners.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA expects that some of the participants in the WasteWise Program will be small entities. EPA has designed its reporting forms to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information. The WasteWise Program was designed to be highly flexible. Organizations can choose the number of facilities to include in the program and choose their own goals based on individual organization resources. In addition, the burden associated with the WasteWise Program is inherently reduced since the initial agreement to participate is voluntary. In addition, for companies with fewer than 50 employees EPA does not conduct followup if Annual Assessment Forms are not submitted. These partners can maintain their WasteWise participation as long as they indicate that they are actively conducting waste reduction efforts.

5( d) Collection Schedule Organizations may submit Partner Registration Forms to join the WasteWise Program at any time. Within six months after a participant joins the program, it should submit an Annual Assessment Form. All existing partners' Annual Assessment Forms are due to EPA by March 31 of every year that the partner participates in the program. page 14 Trade associations and other membership based organizations may submit Endorser Registration Forms to join the WasteWise Endorser Program at any time.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Exhibit 1 ( see page 14) presents the burden hours and costs per respondent as well as for all respondents during each of the three years covered under this ICR.

The Partner Registration Form contains basic questions, thus the burden is expected to be minimal. The overall burden, as shown in the table, is estimated to be one hour per participant. This burden level is an estimate based on nine years of WasteWise program experience. The burden estimate for the Partner Registration Form is for reporting only.

Completing the Annual Assessment Form entails assessment, reporting, and recordkeeping activities. The overall annual labor burden for partners is expected to average 40 hours per participant. Burden hours for the Annual Assessment Form are for conducting a waste assessment to analyze waste reduction opportunities, setting up a tracking system, and mainly for reporting activities.

New partners joining WasteWise are estimated to spend 41 hours ( one hour on the Partner Registration Form and 40 hours on the Annual Assessment Form) on the information collection activities in the first year of membership, and 40 hours ( on the Annual Assessment Form) for subsequent years in the program.

The Endorser Registration Form asks for basic information and requests brief/ general descriptions of promotional activities, thus the burden is expected to be minimal. The overall burden, as shown in Exhibit 1, is estimated to be 10 hours per participant. All burden hours for the Endorser Registration Form are for reporting only.

The average WasteWise endorser will spend 10 hours on the information collection activities in its first year as an endorser and will incur no further information collection burden in subsequent years.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs In previous ICRs, EPA had estimated an average hourly labor rate ( hourly rate plus overhead) of $ 75 for managerial staff, $ 49 for technical staff, and $ 29 for clerical staff. For this supporting statement, EPA updated the rates to reflect the civilian wages listed in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' " Employer Costs for Employee Compensation" report dated June 2005. ( This report is currently located on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Web site at < http:// www. bls. gov/ schedule/ archives/ ecec_ nr. htm# 2005>). The rates from this table were $ 47.20 for managerial staff, $ 30.54 for technical staff, and $ 18.88 for clerical staff. EPA added an additional 110 percent to this rate to reflect burden overhead. The resulting rates which EPA used to calculate the burden costs are $ 93.10 for managerial staff, $ 64.13 for technical staff, and $ 39.65 for clerical staff. No capital or operations and management costs are incurred by respondents under this ICR. page 15 Respondent Labor Costs ( hourly rate plus 110 percent overhead)

Labor Category Rate on Table Rate plus 110 percent Management $ 42.40 $ 89.04 Service Providing $ 25.34 $ 53.21 Office $ 19.69 $ 41.34 Exhibit 1, on the following page, presents the estimated burden for WasteWise partners based on each form. This information is based on the following data: Existing WasteWise Partners = 1,400 New Partners Per Year = 100 Existing WasteWise Endorsers = 250 New Endorsers Per Year = 25 page 16 Total Hours Management Technician Administrative Review form 0.75 0.25 0.5 0 $ 49 75 $ 4,887 75 $ 4,887 75 $ 4,887 Complete/ transmit form 0.25 0 0 0.25 $ 10 25 $ 1,034 25 $ 1,034 25 $ 1,034 SUBTOTAL 1 0.25 0.5 0.25 $ 59 100 $ 5,920 100 $ 5,920 100 $ 5,920 Collect records and conduct a waste assessment OR account for annual efforts 20.5 2 11.5 7 $ 1,079 26,650 $ 1,403,188 28,700 $ 1,511,125 30,750 $ 1,619,063 Review records to assess progress 6 2 4 0 $ 391 7,800 $ 508,196 8,400 $ 547,288 9,000 $ 586,380 Set goals 10 1 8 1 $ 556 13,000 $ 722,878 14,000 $ 778,484 15,000 $ 834,090 Complete/ transmit form 2.5 0 2 0.5 $ 127 3,250 $ 165,217 3,500 $ 177,926 3,750 $ 190,635 Respond to EPA Questions 1 0 1 0 $ 53 1,400 $ 69,173 1,500 $ 74,494 1,600 $ 79,815 SUBTOTAL 40 5 26.5 8.5 $ 2,207 52,100 $ 2,868,652 56,100 $ 3,089,317 60,100 $ 3,309,983 52,200 $ 2,874,572 56,200 $ 3,095,237 60,200 $ 3,315,903 New partner  submitting registration form and submitting 6 month Annual Assessment Form ( baseline data) 41 5.25 27 8.75 $ 2,266 Partner  submitting Annual Assessment Form 40 5 26.5 8.5 $ 2,207 Review form 0.75 0 0.75 0 $ 40 18.75 $ 998 18.75 $ 998 18.75 $ 998 Determine activities 9 2 7 0 $ 551 225 $ 13,764 225 $ 13,764 225 $ 13,764 Complete/ transmit form 0.25 0 0 0.25 $ 10 6.25 $ 258 6.25 $ 258 6.25 $ 258 TOTAL COST TO ALL ENDORSER RESPONDENTS 10 2 7.75 0.25 $ 601 250 $ 15,020 250 $ 15,020 250 $ 15,020 Cost per Activity Total Cost per Year Total Hours per Year Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year ENDORSER REGISTRATION FORM Burden Hours & Individual Costs for All Years Year 1 Costs Year 2 Costs Year 3 Costs PARTNER REGISTRATION FORM ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FORM COST TO PARTNERS Hours per Respondent per Activity Total cost to all partners Exhibit 1. An page 17 6( c) Estimating Exhibit 2 presents the collection activities under are also included. EPA based program and interacting with pa The Agency expects most activities u percent) and technical staff ( 75 percent).

percent of the work ( with technical staff at Since one year has past since the last ICR submis current GS rates $ 30.90 for managerial staff ( GS1 for clerical staff ( GS7 1). EPA multiplied wages by 1.6 The resulting rates which EPA used to recalculate the burd for technical staff, and $ 23.44 for clerical staff.

EPA still expects to have contractor support for various as collection under this ICR and has included contractor costs in estim estimated based on the rates for the current contractor ERG, are $ 80.00 fo for technical staff so the average hourly rates are proportional to the percenta given task.

Agency Labor Costs*

EPA/ Contractor Share Management Technical Administrativ e Management (% performed) Technical (% performed) Administrativ e (% performed) Average Hourly Rate** 100% EPA $ 49.44 $ 41.57 $ 23.44 25% 74%

1%

$ 38.15 0% Contractor $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0% 0% 1%

$ 0.00 TOTAL $ 49.44 $ 41.57 $ 23.44    $ 38.15 25% EPA $ 12.36 $ 10.39 N/ A 25% 75%

0%

$ 11.38 75% Contractor $ 60.00 $ 30.00 N/ A 25% 75%

0%

$ 37.50 TOTAL $ 71.74 $ 39.87 N/ A    $ 48.88 0% EPA $ 0.00 $ 0.00 N/ A 25% 75%

0%

$ 0.00 100% Contractor $ 80.00 $ 40.00 N/ A 25% 75%

0%

$ 50.00 TOTAL $ 80.00 $ 40.00 N/ A    $ 50.00 * EPA = hourly rate plus 60 percent overhead Contractor = hourly rate includes overhead ** Based on shared activities/ costs by EPA and contractor page 18 Hours Costs Hours Costs Hours Cost Distribute Forms $ 48.88 250 $ 12,220 $ 1,000 $ 13,220 250 $ 12,220 $ 1,000 $ 13,220 250 $ 12,220 $ 1,000 $ 13,220 Answer Questions $ 50.00 500 $ 25,000 $ 2,000 $ 27,000 500 $ 25,000 $ 2,000 $ 27,000 500 $ 25,000 $ 2,000 $ 27,000 Record/ Enter Forms $ 50.00 75 $ 3,750 $ 300 $ 4,050 75 $ 3,750 $ 300 $ 4,050 75 $ 3,750 $ 300 $ 4,050 Mail Out Member Packets $ 50.00 113 $ 5,650 $ 450 $ 6,100 113 $ 5,650 $ 450 $ 6,100 113 $ 5,650 $ 450 $ 6,100 SUBTOTAL 938 $ 46,620 $ 3,750 $ 50,370 938 $ 46,620 $ 3,750 $ 50,370 938 $ 46,620 $ 3,750 $ 50,370 Distribute Forms $ 48.88 240 $ 11,731 $ 960 $ 12,691 278 $ 13,589 $ 1,110 $ 14,699 315 $ 15,397 $ 1,260 $ 16,657 Develop/ Maintain Tracking System $ 50.00 250 $ 12,500 0 $ 12,500 250 $ 12,500 0 $ 12,500 250 $ 12,500 0 $ 12,500 Answer Questions/ Review/ Followup $ 48.88 2,000 $ 97,760 $ 7,680 $ 105,440 2,100 $ 102,648 $ 8,880 $ 111,528 2,200 $ 107,536 $ 10,080 $ 117,616 Record/ Code/ Enter Forms $ 50.00 1,500 $ 75,000 0 $ 75,000 1,600 $ 80,000 0 $ 80,000 1,700 $ 85,000 0 $ 85,000 QA/ QC Data $ 50.00 1,500 $ 75,000 0 $ 75,000 1,600 $ 80,000 0 $ 80,000 1,700 $ 85,000 0 $ 85,000 Develop/ Publish Annual Summary $ 48.88 800 $ 39,104 $ 1,200 $ 40,304 800 $ 39,104 $ 1,200 $ 40,304 800 $ 39,104 $ 1,200 $ 40,304 SUBTOTAL 6,290 $ 311,095 $ 9,840 $ 320,935 6,628 $ 327,841 $ 11,190 $ 339,031 6,965 $ 344,537 $ 12,540 $ 357,077 Distribute Forms $ 48.88 5 $ 244 $ 20 $ 275 5 $ 255 $ 20 $ 275 5 $ 255 $ 20 $ 275 Answer Questions $ 48.88 10 $ 489 $ 40 $ 550 10 $ 510 $ 40 $ 550 10 $ 510 $ 40 $ 550 Record/ Enter Forms $ 50.00 10 $ 500 $ 20 $ 520 10 $ 500 $ 20 $ 520 10 $ 500 $ 20 $ 520 Mail Endorser Packet $ 50.00 5 $ 250 $ 180 $ 430 5 $ 250 $ 180 $ 430 5 $ 250 $ 180 $ 430 SUBTOTAL 30 $ 1,483 $ 260 $ 1,775 30 $ 1,515 $ 260 $ 1,775 30 $ 1,515 $ 260 $ 1,775 Total Cost 7,258 $ 359,198 $ 13,850 $ 373,080 7,596 $ 375,976 $ 15,200 $ 391,176 7,933 $ 392,672 $ 16,550 $ 409,222 COST TO EPA Labor Labor Labor Other Direct Costs Total Costs Other Direct Costs Total Costs Other Direct Costs Total Costs ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTNER REGISTRATION FORM ENDORSER REGISTRATION FORM YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 Average Hourly Rate Exhibit 2. page 19 FORM NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BURDEN HOURS COST ( in dollars) YEAR 1 Partner Registration 100 100 $ 5,920 Annual Assessment or Baseline Data Submission 1400 52,350 $ 2,874,572 Endorser Registration 25 250 $ 15,020 Year 1 Bottom Line * 1,425 52,700 $ 2,895,512 YEAR 2 Partner Registration 100 100 $ 5,920 Annual Assessment or Baseline Data Submission 1,500 56,350 $ 3,095,237 Endorser Registration 25 250 $ 15,020 Year 2 Bottom Line * 1,525 56,700 $ 3,116,177 YEAR 3 Partner Registration 100 100 $ 5,920 Annual Assessment or Baseline Data Submission 1,600 60,350 $ 3,315,903 Endorser Registration 25 250 $ 15,020 Year 3 Bottom Line * 1,625 60,700 $ 3,336,843 3 YEAR TOTAL 4,575 170,100 $ 9,348,532 6(

d)

Estimating the Resp The WasteWise Prog partners to jo Registration partners estim need to subm information (

currently has therefore onl submit them.

6(

e)

Bottom Line Burden Hours The bottom line burd estimated nu There are var respondents i Table 1.

Bottom Line Burden and Costs to Respondent page 20 YEAR BURDEN HOURS COST Year 1 7,258 $ 373,080 Year 2 7,596 $ 391,176 Year 3 7,933 $ 409,222 Year 3 Bottom Line 22,787 $ 1,173,478 * Bottom line dat and endorser registra The bottom line burden and costs to EPA also vary each year,

according to the number of respondents.

Table 2 indicated the Agency's bot Table 2.

Bottom Line Burden and Costs to 6(

f)

Reasons for Change Since the last clearan affect inform Adjustments $

Changes in Wage Rates.

EP updated rates on the Bureau o <

http://

www.

bls.

gov/

schedul burden costs to the Agency to did not impact burden hours.

$

Variation in Number of Par partners will join during each WasteWise Endorser Program 6(

g)

Burden Statement The reporting burden Partner Reg to review Wa The reporting burden Annual Asse to conduct a complete and The reporting burden Endorser Re time to review page 21 promotional Burden means the tot maintain,

reta to review ins collecting,

va and providin and requirem complete and agency may n unless it disp regulations a To comment on the A estimates,

an collection tec 0010,

which EPA West,

R Reading Roo The telephon Docket is (

20 (

EDOCKET)

the index list that are avail identified abo of Manageme EPA.

Please in any corres 1 In some partners.

We page 22 Attachment A METHODOLOGY FOR WASTEWISE MULTI STAGE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The method used to estimate the WasteWise impact accounts for two data facts: ( 1) not all WasteWise partners report waste prevention and recycling data and ( 2) we have no information on waste prevention and recycling among nonpartners. To account for these data problems, EPA developed a method that relies on statistical modeling to account for the missing data. One important fact, however, is that although we do not have waste prevention and recycling data for non reporting partners and non partners, we do have access to other information on these companies ( e. g., financial information, size). Use of this other information helps us to control for the fact that we are missing outcome ( i. e., waste prevention and recycling) data. In statistical terms, we have censored data. Thus, although we are missing outcome data for some companies, we know which companies are missing data and we have other information on these companies.

The method can best be described as a multi stage statistical analysis that uses statistical modeling to develop control variables to overcome the lack of outcome data. In the first part of the analysis, we look at what influences firms' decisions to join WasteWise. From this analysis we create a variable that reflects the probability that a firm is a WasteWise partner. 1 In the second part of the analysis, we measure how a number of factors, including the probability of being a WasteWise partner, affect waste prevention and recycling. The relationship between the probability of being a WasteWise partner and the outcome variables ( waste prevention and recycling) will determine the program effect of WasteWise.

Using the probability of being a WasteWise partner adjusts for the lack of outcome data for nonpartners. To understand this, consider the situation where outcome data are available for both partners and nonpartners. We will refer to this as the full data scenario. In this situation, we can construct a binary variable equal to one if the firm was a partner and zero if not. The statistical analysis would then compare outcomes among partners ( binary variable equal to one) to nonpartners ( binary variable equal to zero) while controlling for other relevant factors ( size, financial status). The difference between outcomes for partners and nonpartners after controlling for other relevant factors is the program effect of WasteWise. This type of analysis is not possible because we do not have outcome data for nonpartners.

To develop an estimate of the program effect in the absence of outcome data for nonpartners, we have developed a statistical approach that combines some well accepted methods. In terms of the discussion above, we transform the binary variable into one that is continuous between zero and one ( i. e., the probability of being a partner). In the full data scenario, outcome data are available for both partners and nonpartners. In our situation, however, outcome data are only available for cases where the binary variable equals one, making direct comparison impossible because there is no variation in the program participation measure. To get around this, we use the probability of being a partner to measure the degree to which a firm is part of the program. The probability of being a WasteWise partner will exhibit variation among partners. Firms that have a higher probability of being a partner should also perform more waste prevention and recycling. A detailed technical justification of this method can be found in the full project report ( currently under peer review).

The second part of the analysis also adjusts for two other problems: ( 1) some partners will have " zero" for the outcome variable, but in actuality, probably are conducting waste reduction initiatives but do not report and ( 2) there will be some firm specific effects. The occurrence of " zero" values for waste prevention and recycling amounts reflects censoring of the outcome variable. That is, we expect that actual waste prevention and recycling amounts are positive for those companies, but since the companies did not 2 By " firm specific effects," we mean factors that we cannot measure that might affect the data. Examples of such factors include corporate culture and how firms measure waste prevention.

3 For more information on EPA's WARM model, see < http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ oar/ globalwarming. nsf/ content/ ActionsWasteWARM. html>

page 23 report a value, we record their value as " zero." This type of problem is not uncommon in statistical research, and a variety of methods have been developed to account for the missing data in a regression model framework. We use a " Tobit" model specification to handle this issue, which is discussed in more detail in the full report.

The presence of " firm specific effects2" reflects the nature of the data. Specifically, we have a number of partners measured over time. This scenario is commonly referred to as panel or longitudinal data. In such a framework, unmeasured differences ( i. e., the firm specific effects) between firms can lead to biased estimates for the variables included in the analysis. A number of methods have been developed to account for the presence of these firm specific effects. We use the random effects procedure to account for these firm specific effects, which is discussed in more detail in the full report.

Our method also allows us to estimate a waste prevention and recycling amount for non reporting partners. Thus, once the analysis has defined the relationship between outcomes and the control factors, we can use the estimated statistical model to fill in the missing values for non reporting partners. We discuss this in more detail in the full report.

Finally, to meet EPA's goal of identifying the impact of WasteWise on our global climate, the method must also provide material specific estimates of the amount of waste prevention and recycling that are attributable to the WasteWise program. While the statistical analysis provides a program effect for categories of materials, it does not provide a material specific estimate needed for use in EPA's WARM model3. There are two separate questions that need resolution in this area: ( 1) What will be the program effect for specific materials if we only have category level estimates of the program effect? and ( 2) How do we estimate the amount of waste prevention and recycling of specific materials for non reporting partners if we only have category level estimates of these amounts for non reporting partners? The first can be resolved with a reasonable assumption: that is, we assume that the category level estimates of the program effect can be applied to the materials within each category.

The second issue requires some elaboration before describing a solution. The statistical models that we estimate provide a category level estimate of waste prevention and recycling for non reporting partners. For example, the statistical model for plastics waste prevention will provide an estimate of the amount of plastics waste prevention achieved by non reporting partners. The statistical model will not, however, provide material specific estimates of waste prevention and recycling. This is not an issue for reporting partners since they have reported material specific amounts. To determine the material specific amounts for non reporting partners, we use the distribution of materials in each category from the reported partners, stratified by industry sector. We describe this approach in more detail in the full report.