[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47042-47045]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17165]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0149; FRL-9948-64]

2-Propenoic Acid, Butyl Ester, Polymer With Ethenyl Acetate and
Sodium Ethenesulfonate; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate (CAS Reg. No. 66573-43-
1) when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical
formulation. Celanese Ltd submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of 2-propenoic acid,
butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate on
food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 20, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 19, 2016,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0149, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0149 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
September 19, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0149, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10900)
filed by Celanese Ltd, 222 W Las Colinas Blvd., Suite 900N, Irving, TX
75039. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate
and sodium ethenesulfonate (CAS No. 66573-43-1). That document included
a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited
comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any
comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will

result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate conforms to the
definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    8. The polymer's number average MW of 20,500 is greater than or
equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric
material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW
1,000.
    Thus, 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate
and sodium ethenesulfonate meets the criteria for a polymer to be
considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to
the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from
dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer
with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate could be present in all
raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that
non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average
MW of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and
sodium ethenesulfonate is 20,500 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this
size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract
or through intact human skin. Since 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester,
polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate conform to the
criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for
risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are
reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is
not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with
ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate to share a common mechanism
of toxicity with any other substances, and 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
2-propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium
ethenesulfonate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate, EPA has
not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same
reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of 2-propenoic acid, butyl ester,
polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    There are no existing exemptions from a tolerance for 2-propenoic
acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium
ethenesulfonate.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for 2-propenoic acid, butyl
ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of 2-propenoic acid,
butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate
from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 11, 2016.
Daniel Kenny,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, add alphabetically the polymer ``2-Propenoic acid,
butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate,
minimum number average molecular weight (in amu), 20,500'' in the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
2-Propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with ethenyl           66573-43-1
 acetate and sodium ethenesulfonate, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in amu), 20,500..............

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-17165 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32038-32039]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14560]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a closed meeting on Thursday, July
13, 2017 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit
consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Chairman Clayton, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from
the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 6, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14560 Filed 7-7-17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36123-36124]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12889]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0078; FRL-9937-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Revision)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Toxic Chemical Release Reporting
(EPA ICR Number 2613.04, OMB Control Number 2070-0212) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request to revise an existing
ICR that is currently approved through March 31, 2024. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register on November 15, 2021
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2021-0303, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 2821T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Sleasman, Regulatory Support
Branch (7101M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Pursuant to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., certain
facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use specified toxic
chemicals in amounts above reporting threshold levels as provided in 40
CFR 372.25 must submit annually to EPA reporting forms to the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI). The revisions to this ICR covers the
information collection activities associated with the submission of
information to TRI pursuant to EPCRA section 313(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.
11023. Under EPCRA section 313(b)(2), the EPA Administrator has the
authority to extend TRI reporting requirements to specific facilities
that manufacture, process, or otherwise use a TRI-listed toxic
chemical, but who are not currently covered by TRI reporting
requirements as described at 40 CFR 372. The Administrator may
determine a specific facility warrants TRI reporting on the basis of a
chemical's toxicity, the facility's proximity to other facilities that
release the chemical or to population centers, the facility's history
of releases of the chemical, or other factors that the Administrator
deems appropriate. This ICR revision includes discussion of EPA's
discretionary authority under EPCRA section 313(b)(2) and outreach to
potential stakeholders.
    Form Numbers: 9350-1 and 9350-2.
    Respondents/affected entities: The facility has 10 or more full-
time employee equivalents; the facility is included in a NAICS Code
listed at 40 CFR 372.23 or under E.O. 13148, Federal facilities
regardless of their industry classification; and the facility
manufactures (defined to include importing), processes, or otherwise
uses any EPCRA section 313 (TRI) chemical in quantities greater than
the established thresholds for the specific chemical in the course of a
calendar year. EPA may also exercise its discretionary authority under
EPCRA section 313(b)(2) to extend TRI reporting obligations to a
facility.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, 40 CFR 372 and EPCRA
section 313.
    Estimated number of respondents: 76,579 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 3,616,827 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $257,011,726 (per year), includes no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 1700 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. The additional hours are a result of an increase in 3
burden hours per facility in non-reporting burden. This increase also
reflects the review of the notification and preparation of responses
stakeholders may engage in upon receipt of the Agency's notification of
its potential application of the discretionary authority under EPCRA
section 313(b)(2) to specific facilities. This increase is categorized
as a program change. Additionally, in December 2021, the EPA
Administrator determined that 29 facilities warrant the extension of
TRI reporting requirements under the authority in EPCRA section
313(b)(2) for specific chemicals; the updated burden estimates reflect
potential reporting from these facilities.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-12889 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30534-30536]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Emergency Order No. 31, Notice No. 1]

Emergency Order Under 49 U.S.C. 20104 Establishing Requirements
for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation To Control Passenger
Train Speeds at Certain Locations Along the Northeast Corridor

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this emergency order (EO or Order) to require
that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) take actions
to control passenger train speed at certain locations on main line
track in the Northeast Corridor (as described by 49 U.S.C.
24905(c)(1)(A)). Amtrak must immediately implement code changes to its
Automatic Train Control (ATC) System to enforce the passenger train
speed limit ahead of the curve at Frankford Junction in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, where a fatal accident occurred on May 12, 2015. Amtrak
must also identify each main track curve on the Northeast Corridor
where there is a significant reduction (more than 20 miles per hour
(mph)) from the maximum authorized approach speed to those curves for
passenger trains. Amtrak must then develop and comply with an FRA-
approved action plan to modify its existing ATC System or other signal
systems (or take alternative operational actions) to enable enforcement
of passenger train speed limits at the identified curves. Amtrak must
also install additional wayside passenger train speed limit signage at
appropriate locations on its Northeast Corridor right-of-way.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Hynes, Director, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Joseph St. Peter, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Matthew Navarrete, Trial Attorney, Office
of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    FRA has determined that public safety compels issuance of this EO.
This determination is made in light of the Amtrak train derailment that
occurred in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on May 12, 2015, in which eight
persons were killed and a significant number of others were seriously
injured. While the cause of the accident has not yet been determined,
preliminary investigation into this derailment indicates the train was
traveling approximately 106 mph on a curve where the maximum authorized
passenger train speed is 50 mph. This was a serious overspeed event and
FRA has concluded that additional action is necessary in the form of
this EO to eliminate an immediate hazard of death, personal injury, or
significant harm to the environment.

Authority

    Authority to enforce Federal railroad safety laws has been
delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Administrator of
FRA. 49 CFR 1.89 and internal delegations. Railroads are subject to
FRA's safety jurisdiction under the Federal railroad safety laws. 49
U.S.C. 20101, 20103. FRA is authorized to issue emergency orders where
an unsafe condition or practice ``causes an emergency situation
involving a hazard of death, personal injury, or significant harm to
the environment.'' 49 U.S.C. 20104. These orders may immediately impose
``restrictions and prohibitions . . . that may be necessary to abate
the situation.'' Id.

Amtrak Derailment

    On Tuesday, May 12, 2015, Amtrak passenger train 188 (Train 188)
was traveling timetable east (northbound) from Washington, DC, to New
York City. Aboard the train were five crew members and approximately
238 passengers. Train 188 consisted of a conventional set-up with a
locomotive in the lead and seven passenger cars trailing. Shortly after
9:20 p.m., the train derailed while traveling through a curve in the
track at Frankford Junction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a result
of the accident, eight people were killed, and a significant number of
people were seriously injured.
    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has taken the lead
role conducting the investigation of this accident under its legal
authority. 49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.; 49 CFR 800.3(a) and 831.2(b). As is
customary, FRA is participating in the NTSB's investigation and also
investigating the accident under its own authority. While NTSB has not
yet issued any formal findings, the information it has released makes
it obvious that train speed was a likely factor in the derailment. As
Train 188 approached the curve from the west, it traveled over a
straightaway with a maximum authorized passenger train speed of 80 mph.
The maximum authorized passenger train speed for the curve was 50 mph.
NTSB determined that the train was traveling approximately 106 mph
within the curve's 50-mph speed restriction, exceeding the maximum
authorized speed on the straightaway by 26 mph, and 56 mph over
railroad's maximum authorized speed for the curve.\1\ NTSB also
determined the locomotive engineer operating the train made an
emergency application of Train 188's air brake system, and the train
slowed to approximately 102 mph before derailing in the curve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FRA regulations provide, in part, that it is unlawful to
``[o]perate a train or locomotive at a speed which exceeds the
maximum authorized limit by at least 10 miles per hour.'' 49 CFR
240.305(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2013 Metro-North Derailment

    Upon evaluating the Amtrak accident described above, FRA found
similarities to an accident that occurred in December 2013, on the New
York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Metro-North Commuter
Railroad Company (Metro-North) track. The Metro-North accident was the
subject of FRA's Emergency Order No. 29. 78 FR 75442, Dec. 11, 2013.
That accident occurred when a Metro-North passenger train was traveling
south toward Grand Central Terminal in New York City. The train
traveled over a straightaway with a maximum authorized passenger train
speed of 70 mph before reaching a sharp curve in the track with a
maximum authorized speed of 30 mph. NTSB's investigation of the Metro-
North accident determined the train was traveling approximately 82 mph
as it entered the curve's 30-mph speed

restriction before derailing. That derailment resulted in four
fatalities and at least 61 persons being injured.

Overspeed Protections

    Amtrak's passenger trains are normally operated with only one
crewmember in the cab of a passenger train's locomotive. Amtrak's
controlling locomotives are typically equipped with an alerter to help
ensure the attentiveness of the locomotive engineer operating the
train. Amtrak's locomotive controls and its signal systems also
incorporate an ATC System, which is a train speed control system where
trains are automatically slowed or stopped if a locomotive engineer
fails to comply with signal indication or is otherwise unable to take
action to slow a train. The ATC system is used to enforce compliance
with certain signal indications in a particular territory, but it is
not typically used to enforce civil passenger train speed restrictions
that are below the maximum authorized operating speed for the broader
territory. However, Amtrak's ATC System is capable of being used in a
manner to enforce civil speed restrictions that are below the maximum
authorized operating speed in some situations. This is accomplished by
installing a code change point at or near the location where the speed
restriction is to be enforced. As mentioned above, Amtrak's existing
ATC System is not currently coded to slow trains to comply with
applicable speed limits in all circumstances, and such coding may not
be operationally feasible in all instances.\2\ As demonstrated by the
May 12, 2015, accident, if a locomotive engineer fails to take action
to slow a train when approaching such a speed restriction, currently,
Amtrak's ATC System will not slow the train to comply with the required
speed reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FRA understands that on the date of the accident the ATC
system enforced the curve's speed restriction for the timetable west
(southbound) trains at this curve but not for the timetable east
(northbound) trains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the May 12 derailment that is the subject of this
Order, and in an effort to immediately prevent similar incidents from
occurring that could result in an emergency situation involving a
hazard of death, personal injury, or significant harm to the
environment, in this Order FRA is requiring Amtrak take certain
immediate actions. First, FRA is ordering Amtrak to implement code
changes to its ATC System near the Frankford Junction curve in
Philadelphia where the May 12 accident occurred in the timetable east
(northbound) direction. The changes implemented must provide
enforcement of the relevant passenger train speed limit of 50 mph for
passenger trains approaching that curve. Amtrak has already completed
actions to implement such changes.
    Next, Amtrak must identify all other main track curves on the
Northeast Corridor where there is a significant reduction (more than 20
mph) in the authorized passenger train approach speed upon the approach
to those curves. After identifying such curves, Amtrak must develop and
submit to FRA for review and approval an action plan to make
appropriate code modifications to its existing ATC System or other
signal systems to enable warning and enforcement of relevant passenger
train speed restrictions. This requirement does not apply to portions
of the Northeast Corridor where Amtrak's operations are governed by a
Positive Train Control (PTC) system that is in use. To the extent that
other railroads operate passenger trains at the same maximum authorized
speeds as Amtrak in the curves affected by this Order, the
modifications Amtrak makes to its ATC System or signal systems must
also enforce the relevant speed restrictions for those trains.
    If such code changes at identified curves will interfere with the
timely implementation of PTC or are otherwise not viable, Amtrak must
identify other actions it will take to ensure compliance with speed
reductions (e.g., a procedure whereby a locomotive engineer and a
second qualified employee communicate via radio ahead of relevant speed
reductions, and where the second qualified employee may make an
emergency brake application to slow the train if the locomotive
engineer fails to do so). These alternative operational actions must be
described in Amtrak's action plan submitted to FRA for approval. In
addition, any alternative operational actions Amtrak adopts to ensure
compliance with speed restrictions at identified curve locations on the
Northeast Corridor also apply to passenger trains operated by other
railroads at those curve locations.
    FRA notes that other railroads have coded their ATC systems to
prevent overspeed events from occurring at locations where there are
civil or other speed restrictions. FRA's Emergency Order No. 29, issued
after the December 2013 accident discussed above, required Metro-North
to take similar actions in response to that accident. FRA is ordering
Amtrak to take similar steps to prevent accidents similar to the May
12, 2015, accident from occurring in the future if a locomotive
engineer fails (or is otherwise unable) to take action to appropriately
slow or stop a passenger train.
    In addition to the above requirements, Amtrak must also enhance
speed restriction signage along its rights-of-way on the Northeast
Corridor. Amtrak must identify in the action plan it submits to FRA the
locations at which it intends to install such additional signage, and
provide notice to FRA when such additional signage has been installed.
Increasing the amount and frequency of signage provides a redundant
means to remind engineers and conductors of the authorized speed, in
addition to information they receive from the ATC System and
operational documents such as timetable or bulletin.
    FRA recognizes that Amtrak has been diligent in implementing PTC on
the Northeast Corridor by December 31, 2015, as required by section 104
of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. (Pub. L. 110-432, Division
A, 122 Stat. 4848, 4856 (49 U.S.C. 20157)). Amtrak has indicated that
it intends to meet the RSIA's statutory deadline to install PTC on the
Northeast Corridor. Once in use, the PTC system will enforce the speed
restriction at the curve where the May 12, 2015, accident occurred, but
the interim action of implementing the code change in the ATC System,
as required by this EO, will provide overspeed derailment protection
until the PTC system is in use. As discussed above, Amtrak has already
taken action to enforce appropriate passenger train speed limits near
the curve where the May 12, 2015, accident occurred prior to its
resumption of passenger train service, and plans to take similar
actions at certain other locations on the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak
also has stated it intends to increase radar checks, locomotive event
recorder downloads, and efficiency tests aimed at ensuring compliance
with relevant speed restrictions. Finally, Amtrak intends to hold
listening sessions with its employees to learn about, and address, any
additional safety concerns.
    Nonetheless, due to the significant safety concerns presented by
the May 12, 2015, accident, FRA believes immediate enforceable action
is necessary to address the emergency situation that contributed to
that derailment. FRA will continue to review additional actions to
address safety concerns on the Nation's passenger rail systems as its
investigation into the May 12, 2015, derailment continues. FRA will
revisit the necessity of the requirements in this Order upon reviewing
Amtrak's actions taken to comply with the EO, or upon PTC systems
governing Amtrak's operations

on the Northeast Corridor becoming operative.

Finding and Order

    FRA recognizes that passenger rail transportation is generally
extremely safe. However, FRA finds that the recent May 12, 2015,
accident on Amtrak, and the lack of overspeed protections in place at
certain locations on Amtrak's system, create an emergency situation
involving a hazard of death, personal injury, or significant harm to
the environment. Accordingly, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 20104,
delegated to the Administrator of FRA by the Secretary of
Transportation, 49 CFR 1.89 and internal delegations, it is hereby
ordered that:
    1. Amtrak must immediately implement code changes to its ATC System
or other signal systems near the Frankford Junction curve in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where the fatal May 12, 2015, accident
occurred. The changes must enforce the passenger train speed limit of
50 mph for timetable east (northbound) trains approaching that curve.
    2. Amtrak must survey its main line track system located on the
Northeast Corridor (as described by 49 U.S.C. 24905(c)(1)(A)) and
identify each main track curve where there is a reduction of more than
20 mph from the maximum authorized approach speed to that curve for
passenger trains, and provide a list of each location to the FRA
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety and Chief Safety Officer
(Associate Administrator) within 5 days of the date of this Order. For
purposes of compliance with this Order, the speed reductions of more
than 20 mph that existed on the date of the issuance of this Order
apply.
    3. After identifying the curves above, Amtrak shall develop and
submit to FRA for approval an action plan that accomplishes each of the
following:
    a. Identifies appropriate modifications to Amtrak's existing ATC
System or other signal systems that Amtrak will make to enable warning
and enforcement of applicable passenger train speeds at the identified
curves. If such coding changes will interfere with the timely
implementation of a PTC system or are not otherwise feasible, Amtrak's
plan must describe why such changes are not feasible and may describe
alternative operating procedures that it will adopt at the identified
curves to ensure compliance with applicable speed reductions.
    b. Contains milestones and target dates for implementing each
identified modification to Amtrak's existing ATC System or other signal
systems (or alternative operational changes) to enable warning and
enforcement of passenger train speeds at the identified curves.
    4. Amtrak must submit the action plan to the Associate
Administrator within 20 days of the date of this Order. FRA will review
and approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove Amtrak's action
plan within 15 days of the plan's submission to FRA. Once FRA approves
its action plan, Amtrak must make all identified modifications to the
existing ATC System or other signal systems (or alternative operational
changes) in the timeframes and manner that complies with all conditions
FRA places on its approval of Amtrak's action plan.
    5. As soon as possible, but not later than 30 days after the date
of this Order, Amtrak must begin to install additional wayside signage
alerting engineers and conductors of the maximum authorized passenger
train speed throughout its Northeast Corridor system, with particular
emphasis on additional signage at the curve locations where speed
reductions implicated by this Order must occur. Amtrak must identify
the locations where it intends to install the additional wayside speed
limit signs in the action plan submitted under paragraphs 3 and 4
above, and must notify the Associate Administrator upon the completion
of the installation of those signs.
    Nothing in this Order precludes FRA from using any of the other
enforcement tools available to the agency under its regulatory
authority to address non-compliance with the Federal railroad safety
laws, regulations, and orders by Amtrak. If necessary, FRA may issue
additional emergency orders or compliance orders, impose civil
penalties against Amtrak (including individuals who may be liable for
civil penalties for willful violations of the Federal railroad safety
laws and regulations), or disqualify individuals from performing
safety-sensitive functions.

Relief

    Amtrak, or any other passenger railroad affected by this Order, may
petition for special approval to take actions not in accordance with
this EO. Petitions must be submitted to the Associate Administrator,
who is authorized to act on those requests without amending this EO. In
reviewing any petition for special review, the Associate Administrator
shall grant petitions only if the petitioner has clearly articulated an
alternative action that will provide, in the Associate Administrator's
judgment, at least a level of safety equivalent to that provided by
compliance with this EO.

Penalties

    Any violation of this EO shall subject the person committing the
violation to a civil penalty of up to $105,000. 49 U.S.C. 21301. Any
individual who willfully violates a provision stated in this order is
subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21301. In addition, any
individual whose violation of this order demonstrates the individual's
unfitness for safety-sensitive service may be removed from safety-
sensitive service on the railroad under 49 U.S.C. 20111. If
appropriate, FRA may pursue criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 522(a)
and 49 U.S.C. 21311(a), as well as 18 U.S.C. 1001, for the knowing and
willful falsification of a report required by this Order. FRA may,
through the Attorney General, also seek injunctive relief to enforce
this Order. 49 U.S.C. 20112.

Effective Date and Notice to Affected Persons

    This EO is effective upon Amtrak's receipt of an electronic copy,
and Amtrak shall immediately initiate steps to implement this Order to
comply with the Order's deadlines.

Review

    Opportunity for formal review of this EO will be provided under 49
U.S.C. 20104(b) and 5 U.S.C. 554. Administrative procedures governing
such review are at 49 CFR part 211. See 49 CFR 211.47, 211.71, 211.73,
211.75, and 211.77.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2015.
Sarah Feinberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-12774 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15972-15974]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6687]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0482; FRL-9284-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; SmartWay Transport Partnership
(New Collection)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new
collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of
the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 21,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0482, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB by mail to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Kearns, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:
734-214-4906; e-mail: kearns.denise @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On April 28, 2009 (74 FR 19222), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0482, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential
business information (CBI), or other information whose public
disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: SmartWay Transport Partnership (New Collection).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2265.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW.
    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) supports the
SmartWay Transport Partnership, an energy conservation deployment
program that aims to improve fuel efficiency and curb greenhouse gas
emissions generated by the freight goods movement industry. OAR
developed the SmartWay Transport Partnership under directives outlined
in Subtitle D of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which calls on EPA to
assess the energy and air quality impacts of activities within the
freight industry. These activities include long-duration truck idling,
the development and promotion of strategies for reducing idling, fuel
consumption, and negative air quality effects. SmartWay's objectives
also are consistent with the Federal Technology Transfer Act and other
laws that support collaborative partnerships between government and
industry.
    The partnership is open to organizations that either use or provide
freight transport services for goods movement. ``Affiliate''
organizations that do not operate freight transport fleets, but that
are working to strengthen the freight industry, such as industry trade
associations, state and local transportation agencies and environmental
groups, also may sign on as SmartWay partners.
    All organizations that join SmartWay, including carriers, shippers
and affiliates are asked to provide EPA with information.
    Specifically, as a first step toward partnering with EPA,
organizations that operate fleets, such as freight carriers, shippers
and logistics management companies, commit to assessing and improving
the environmental performance of their freight transport activities. A
company joins SmartWay when it: (1) Conducts an assessment of its
transportation and freight-based management activities and inputs its
results into SmartWay's online environmental measurement tracking
system; and (2) provides a signed partnership agreement to EPA. Data
outputs from the environmental tracking system are used by companies to
establish a baseline and set goals for reducing fuel use and emissions.
Under their partnership agreement, companies also agree to annually
update the environmental performance tracking system and provide those
updated results to EPA.
    Data outputs from the environmental tracking system are vital to
the SmartWay Partnership for several reasons. First, the data provides
confirmation that EPA's SmartWay partners have set a baseline,
established objectives and are meeting those objectives as outlined in
their partnership agreement. The environmental measurement tracking
system also makes it possible for EPA to assist our partners in
adjusting their commitments, as appropriate, and to update them with
environmental performance and technology information that will empower
them to improve their efficiency and achieve their environmental goals.
This information also improves EPA's knowledge and understanding of the
environmental and energy impacts associated with goods movement, and
the effectiveness of both proven and emerging strategies to lessen
those impacts.
    In addition to requesting tracking updates on fuel consumption and
environmental performance, EPA may from time to time provide
opportunities to encourage SmartWay partners to provide other kinds of
information, to improve the program's services. These opportunities may
be made available to all SmartWay partners, including affiliates. Some
examples of the kinds of information and topics that partners might
provide input to EPA on could include opinions and test data on the
effectiveness of new and emerging technology applications; the reach
and value of partnering with EPA through the SmartWay program; and
awareness of the SmartWay brand. In some instances, EPA might also
query other freight industry representatives (not just SmartWay
partners), including trade and professional associations, nonprofit
environmental groups, energy, and

community organizations, and schools and universities, and a small
sampling of the general public on these topics.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, and financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose
and provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Transportation carriers; retail and
industrial shippers that contract with transportation carriers;
logistics and supply chain management companies; and non-profit and
other affiliates organizations.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,225.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 8,301.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $531,089, which includes $1,350
annualized capital or O&M costs.

    Dated: March 16, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-6687 Filed 3-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P