* These percentages are based on a memorandum from Barnes Johnson of EPA, "e-Manifest User Fees FY 2020/FY2021," dated July 22, 2019.

As discussed at the beginning of Section 6, this ICR estimates burden based primarily on the three activities shown below in accordance with the scope assumptions in Table 1. Table 6 presents the 3-year average number of manifests for each activity:

 Participating in manifest cycle.  This ICR estimates burden to waste handlers for participating in paper manifest cycles for federal hazardous waste as well as electronic manifest cycles for federal and state hazardous waste. This equates to 1.276 million manifests on average annually.

 Submitting copies to national system. This ICR estimates burden to waste handlers for submitting all paper copies accompanying federal and state waste to the national system. This equates to 1.591 million manifests on average annually.

 Paying fees. This ICR estimates burden to waste handlers for paying fees for all manifests (paper and electronic) accompanying federal and state waste. This equates to 1.785 million manifests on average annually.

                                     Table 6
              3-Year Average Annual Number of Manifests in this ICR*
                             Manifest Activities
                            No. of Paper Manifests
               No. of Electronic Manifests (Federal and State)**
                                Total Manifests

                            Federal Hazardous Waste
                             State Hazardous Waste
                                 PIN/Password
                        Digitized Electronic Signature

Participating in  Manifest Cycle***
                                   1,081,903
                                      --
                                    194,370
                                       0
                                   1,276,273
Submitting Copies to National System****
                                   1,081,903
                                    509,131
                                      --
                                      --
                                   1,591,034
Paying Fees****
                                   1,081,903
                                    509,131
                                    194,370
                                       0
                                   1,785,404
* See Table 1 and accompanying text for further discussion on how this table sums up paper and electronic manifest totals. This table includes rounding error. Some of the numbers in this table are further refined based on additional assumptions presented later in this document. See Section 6D. Estimates are based on e-Manifest data.
** EPA estimates that PIN/passwords will be used for all electronic manifests during the 3 years of this ICR.
*** This includes form completion, transmittal to industry third parties, and recordkeeping by generators, transporters and TSDFs/receiving facilities. This ICR does not estimate burden for paper manifests accompanying state hazardous waste during the manifest cycle.
**** This is performed by designated TSDFs/receiving facilities.

Table 7 presents the manifest counts in Table 6 according to the type of shipment, i.e., domestic, export or import. For example, Table 7 shows that, of the 1,081,903 paper manifests accompanying federal hazardous waste in Table 6, 1,067,891 forms accompany domestic shipments, 12,515 accompany exports, and 1,497 accompany imports.

                                    Table 7
                        Annual Number of Manifests:*
                    Domestic, Export and Import Shipments
                            Shipment/Manifest Type
                                    Federal
                                     State
                                     Total
Domestic
Paper
                                   1,067,891
                                    502,537
                                   1,570,428
Electronic
                                    131,987
                                    62,111
                                    194,098
Total
                                   1,199,878
                                    564,649
                                   1,764,527
Exports
Paper
                                    12,515
                                     5,890
                                    18,405
Electronic**
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
Total
                                    12,515
                                     5,890
                                    18,405
Imports
Paper
                                     1,497
                                      704
                                     2,201
Electronic
                                      185
                                      87
                                      272
Total
                                     1,682
                                      791
                                     2,473
           * Export and import manifests were estimated in August 2020 based on analysis of data from the e-Manifest and EPA's 2019 Annual Report.
           ** The electronic manifest is not available for export shipments at this time.

6B.	Estimating Respondent Costs

Following is a discussion of respondent labor, capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs used in Exhibits 1 through 22. These exhibits are presented in the appendix to this supporting statement.

Labor Costs

 EPA estimates an average hourly respondent labor cost ($2020) of $114.57/hr for legal staff, $97.01/hr for managerial staff, $40.03/hr for technical staff, and $34.23/hr for clerical staff. To derive these hourly estimates, EPA referred to the May 2019 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  This publication summarizes the unloaded (base) hourly rate for major occupational groups.  EPA then applied the standard government overhead factor of 1.6 to the unloaded rate to derive loaded hourly rates. Finally, EPA updated the loaded hourly rates to March 2020 levels using Employment Cost Indexes developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Capital Costs

Capital costs usually include any produced physical good needed to provide the needed information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment. For this ICR, capital costs include file cabinet costs.  As shown in Exhibit 22, EPA estimates the total average annual capital cost to all hazardous waste handlers under the manifest system, collectively, to be $70,957. EPA took the following steps to derive the capital costs associated with the purchase of file cabinets:

          Estimate the total annual volume of paper manifests required to be retained by all waste handlers. Under the manifest system, generators, transporters, and designated TSDF/receiving facilities must keep copies of paper manifests for a period of 3 years. Thus, at any given time during the effective period of this ICR, the hazardous waste industry is keeping paper copies of 3 years' worth of manifests for domestic, import and export shipments (except that designated TSDFs in the U.S. do not receive or retain manifests for exports). In total, EPA estimates that waste handlers (i.e., generators, transporters, and designated TSDF/receiving facilities) will need to keep copies of 9,713,055 manifests annually.

          Ascertain the number of standard-size file cabinets that would provide the needed capacity and estimate aggregate cost to waste handlers. EPA estimates that a standard-size, 5-drawer, lateral file cabinet holds approximately 16,000 documents. Thus, for storing 9,713,055 paper manifests, waste handlers would need 607 file cabinets each year. These 607 file cabinets represent the total capacity needed by the industry, collectively, to store all of its paper manifests. EPA estimates that the cost for one file cabinet is $630 and for all 607 file cabinets is $382,410.

          Annualize the aggregate cost of standard-size file cabinets using a net present value formula. EPA used the following present value formula to annualize the cost of file cabinets over the 3-year effective life of this ICR:

             Annualized Net Present Value = $382,410 x [1/(∑1/(1+k)[t])]

 			where 	k = discount rate of 7%;
                   t = life of equipment (7 years).

       In total, EPA estimates that the hazardous waste industry will need to pay an annual cost of $70,957 for the 607 file cabinets.

 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

 O&M costs are those costs associated with a paperwork requirement incurred continually over the life of the ICR. They are defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 as "the recurring dollar amount of costs associated with O&M or purchasing services."  For this ICR, O&M costs include:

Printing cost for sample manifests:  EPA estimates that respondents will incur a cost of $1,125 for each set of manifest form samples. These respondents are expected to contract with a printing company. Hence, the fee of $1,125 is considered a lump-sum cost. This O&M cost was obtained through limited consultations with registered printers in July 2020. See Section 3C of this document for additional information about the consultations.

Purchase blank paper manifest forms from EPA-registered printer:  EPA estimates that respondents will incur a cost of $0.61 for each blank paper manifest and $0.61  for each blank paper continuation sheet they purchase from an EPA-registered printer,

Mailing costs:  EPA estimates that respondents will incur a cost of $0.61 to mail a one-ounce package ($0.55 for postage and $0.06 for standard-size envelope),   EPA also estimates that respondents will incur a cost of $7.75 for mailing a larger package by priority mail.

Photocopying costs:  EPA estimates that respondents will incur a cost of $0.10 for each photocopy they make.

Long distance telephone call costs:  EPA estimates that respondents will incur a cost of $2.00 for each long distance telephone call they make.

 O&M costs also include the fees assessed to manifest users. See subsection, "(d9) Fees for the Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest Program," in Section 6D of this document for additional information.

6C.	Estimating Agency Hour and Cost Burden

EPA estimates the Agency hour and cost burden associated with the information collection requirements covered in this ICR in Exhibit 23. This exhibit is presented in the appendix to this supporting statement.

Labor Costs

The hourly Agency labor rates used in this ICR were obtained from the 2020 Salary Tables for federal civilian employees, which are published by the Office of Personnel Management.   EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost of $83.84/hr for legal staff, $78.42/hr for managerial staff, $57.49/hr for technical staff, and $23.09/hr for clerical staff. The labor costs are based on the following GS levels and steps:  legal labor rates were based on GS Level 15, Step 1, managerial labor rates were based on GS Level 14, Step 4, technical labor rates were based on GS Level 12, Step 5, and clerical labor rates were based on GS Level 5, Step 1. To derive hourly estimates, EPA multiplied hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6.

 Capital and Operation & Maintenance Costs

 Table 8 presents preliminary annual capital and O&M cost estimates for the Agency to maintain, upgrade and operate the e-Manifest system over the next 3 years. These costs cover such elements as:

          System development;
          Operations & maintenance;
          Paper manifest processing labor and O&M;
          Call center;
          Billing;
          Additional program costs;
          Additional indirect costs; and
          Manifest processing costs.

                                    Table 8
                      Annual Agency Costs for e-Manifest*
Capital
                                  $9,000,000
O&M
                                  $9,000,000
             *The table shows preliminary estimates.

These costs are reflected in Exhibit 23.

6D.	Estimating Respondent Hours and Costs

Exhibits 1 through 21 estimate the annual respondent burden associated with these information collection requirements. Refer to Sections 6A and 6B of this document for respondent universe data used to estimate burden. Exhibit 22 presents the total aggregate annual hour and cost burden to all respondents under the information collection requirements covered in this ICR.

      (a)	Registrant Organization Requirements

      (a1)	Reading the Regulations

Exhibit 1 presents the total annual hour and cost burden to registrant organizations in reading the manifest regulations at 40 CFR 262.21. EPA expects that on average, one registrant organization will read 40 CFR 262.21 regulations each year.

      (a2)	Applying to the Registry

EPA estimates that each year, one entity will register with EPA to print its own forms. There are O&M costs to a registrant for paying a lump-sum fee and postage to produce and submit three samples of the manifest and continuation sheet under 40 CFR 262.21(d).

      (a3)	Updating General Information in the Approved Application

EPA estimates that, each year, three registrant organizations will revise and submit their approved application to EPA, along with an indication or explanation of the update, under 40 CFR 262.21(h)(1).

      (a4)	Requesting Approval for a New Tracking Number Suffix

EPA estimates that no approved registrant organization will request a new tracking number suffix during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Because each manifest tracking number consists of the 3-letter suffix and 9 digits, each registrant will be able to generate more than 999 million forms using its original suffix. EPA does not expect a registrant to request a new suffix for many years.

      (a5)	Requesting Approval for Changes to Printing Specifications or Use of a New Printer

EPA estimates that one registrant organization annually will request approval for changes to its form or for the use of a new printer under 40 CFR 262.21(e). There are O&M costs to a registrant for paying a lump-sum fee and postage to produce and submit three samples of the manifest and continuation sheet under 40 CFR 262.21(d).

      (a6) 	Typesetting the Manifest Form Subsequent to its Approval

EPA estimates that no registrant organization will typeset its manifest form instead of using the electronic file of the forms provided by EPA during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. Upon approval of a registrant's application under 40 CFR 262.21(c), EPA will provide it with an electronic file of the manifest, continuation sheet, and instructions and ask it to use these files to develop the forms. In its consultations, EPA found that printers intend to share these files among their printing establishments so that none will need to typeset the form. Typesetting the form would be unappealing to registrants because of the level of effort required in comparison with using the electronic files.

      (a7) 	Requesting an Exemption

EPA estimates that no registrant organizations will submit a request for an exemption under 40 CFR 262.21(j). EPA expects each registrant to be forward looking when originally registering under 40 CFR 262.21(b) through (e), and carefully select the appropriate paper type, paper weight, and other aspects of the form.

      (a8)	Notifying EPA of a Printing Specification Violation

EPA estimates that one registrant organization will notify EPA that it has duplicated tracking numbers on forms used or distributed to other parties. Registrants must print their forms according to their approved applications, which will lay out procedures for tightly controlling their tracking numbers and ensuring that each manifest has a unique number.

      (a9)	Revising the Approved Manifest if Requested by EPA

EPA estimates that no registrant organization will need to submit revised manifest form samples, per EPA's request, during the 3-year period covered by this ICR. EPA will carefully review each registrant's forms under 40 CFR 262.21(e) to determine if they satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 262.21(f). EPA does not expect to identify problems in forms that have been approved.

      (a10)	Responding to Suspension and Revocation Procedures

EPA does not expect to conduct suspension or revocation procedures during the 3-year period covered by this ICR.

      (b)	Generator Requirements

      (b1)	Reading the Regulations

Exhibit 2 presents the total annual hour and cost burden to hazardous waste generators in reading the manifest regulations at 40 CFR Part 262 and, for e-Manifest users, the e-Manifest User Guide.

      (b2)	Manifest Completion

Exhibits 3 and 4 present the total annual hour and cost burden for generators to complete their paper and electronic manifests.[,]  Exhibit 3 estimates burden for generators to prepare the manifests on their own (i.e., without the assistance of the designated TSDF). Exhibit 4 estimates the burden for generators whose manifests are prepared by the designated TSDF on their behalf. These generators normally review and complete the manifest as needed (e.g., sign and date it) when the waste is picked up by the transporter.

      (b3)	Compliance with State Program Requirements

40 CFR 262.21(g)(2) provides that generators must determine whether they are required to comply with requirements specific to state hazardous waste manifest programs. Because these activities are required under state-specific hazardous waste programs, they are not burdened in this ICR as reflected in Exhibit 5.

      (b4)	Manifest Transmittal and Recordkeeping

As reflected in Exhibit 6, EPA estimates the burden for generators to transmit and keep records of manifests sent with highway shipments (91% of all shipments), bulk shipments within the United States solely by water (3%) and rail shipments within the United States which originate at the site of generation (6%).

      (b5)	Undeliverable Shipments

As shown in Exhibit 7, EPA estimates generators' burden for shipments (paper and electronic manifests) that cannot be delivered to the designated facility listed on the manifest, alternate designated facility if appropriate, or the place outside the United States designated by the generator (for an emergency other than rejected loads). Generators must perform the procedures in section 262.20(d). The exhibit also estimates importers' burden for addressing import shipments that cannot be delivered for any reason to the receiving facility, as required by section 262.84(c)(5).

      (b6)	Rejected Waste and Container Residues

As shown in Exhibit 8, EPA estimates that, each year, 0.5% of shipments received by designated facilities will be rejected and, of these, 1% will be returned to the generator (with the other 99% being sent to an alternate designated facility).

      (b7)	Exception Reports:  Completion, Submission, and Recordkeeping

EPA estimates that, on average, LQGs and SQGs will need to develop an exception report under 40 CFR 262.42 for approximately 1% of the manifests offered into transportation. This assumption is reflected in Exhibit 9.

      (c)	Transporter Requirements

	(c1)	Reading the Regulations

Exhibit 10 presents the total annual hour and cost burden to hazardous waste transporters in reading the manifest regulations at 40 CFR Part 263 and, for e-Manifest users, the e-Manifest User Guide.

      (c2)	Manifest Completion, Transmittal, and Recordkeeping

Exhibit 11 examines the manifesting burden for transporters transporting domestic and international shipments of hazardous waste. [,]   EPA estimates that, of the manifests offered into transportation each year, approximately 91% will accompany highway shipments, 3% will accompany water shipments, and 6% will accompany rail shipments.

Exhibit 11 also addresses undeliverable shipments. This ICR estimates that 1% of all manifests offered into transportation (paper and electronic) cannot be delivered to the designated facility listed on the manifest, alternate designated facility if appropriate, or the place outside the United States designated by the generator (for an emergency other than rejected loads). As reflected in Exhibit 11, the transporter must contact the generator for further instructions pursuant to section 263.21(b)(1). Finally, Exhibit 11 addresses rejected loads and container residues.

      (c3)	Replacement Manifests

Exhibit 12 estimates that 1% of electronic manifests carried by highway transporters will require replacement manifests. EPA assumes that all electronic manifests will be replaced by reproducing 3 paper copies.

      (c4)	Post-Receipt Manifest Data Corrections

EPA expects each transporter company to register its employees with the e-Manifest system and have system access to make corrections.  Exhibit 13 reflects EPA's estimate that transporters will submit corrections or respond with comments for 0.1% of all manifests (paper and electronic) accompanying federal and state waste annually.

      (c5)	Notification of Discharge of Hazardous Waste

Based on the Statistical Abstract of the United States, EPA estimates that approximately 15,000 accidents per year involve transporters of hazardous substances. EPA has used its best judgment to estimate that 5% of these accidents involve transporters of hazardous waste annually (i.e., hazardous waste is a subset of hazardous substances). These transporters will be required to notify local authorities of the discharge as required under 40 CFR 263.30. This is reflected in Exhibit 14.

In addition, based on data from the National Response Center (NRC), EPA estimates that the NRC receives approximately 4,500 notifications of marine source incidents for discharges of oil or hazardous substances annually. NRC data also indicate that about 66% of these incidents involved oil discharges and 33% involved hazardous substances discharges. Of the discharges of hazardous substances, EPA estimates that 5% involve water transporters transporting hazardous waste. These transporters must notify NRC or EPA under 33 CFR Part 153. The purpose of 33 CFR Part 153 is to prescribe regulations concerning notification to the US Coast Guard of the discharge of oil or hazardous substances as required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; the procedures for the removal of a discharge of oil; and the costs that may be imposed or reimbursed for the removal of a discharge of oil or hazardous substances.

      (d)	Designated Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Requirements

      (d1)	Reading the Regulations

Exhibit 15 presents the total annual hour and cost burden to designated TSDFs/receiving facilities in reading the manifest regulations at 40 CFR Part 264 or 265 and, for e-Manifest users, the e-Manifest User Guide.

      (d2)	Completing the Manifest (assisting the generators)

Exhibit 16 estimates the burden for designated TSDFs to assist their generator customers in preparing the manifest on their behalf.

      (d3)	Transmitting the Manifest and Reporting to EPA

Exhibit 17 estimates the burden for designated TSDF/receiving facility completion of all manifests (paper and electronic) involved in the manifest cycle as described in Tables 1 and 6, excluding manifests accompanying exports. [,]

In regard to paper manifests accompanying state hazardous waste, EPA recognizes that a number of receiving facilities must complete these forms under existing state requirements. This ICR need not estimate the burden for such paper manifests because these activities are being performed under state-specific, broader-in-scope program requirements in the absence of federal requirements to do so. However, EPA is aware that some shipments of state waste have faced implementation and tracking challenges when they cross state lines, making it unclear if the facility must complete and return the manifest.   The federal regulations could place incremental burden on these facilities by clarifying that completion is mandatory for all manifests accompanying state waste.

Because of this, Exhibit 17 estimates burden for facilities to complete paper manifests accompanying state waste that would not have been completed under state regulations. EPA estimates that 25% of paper manifests accompanying state waste are completed as a result of the federal regulations.  It is assumed that the remaining 75% of paper manifests were already being completed under state regulations and need not be addressed in this ICR.

In addition, facilities must submit copies of the paper manifest to the national system in accordance with 40 CFR 260.4, 260.5, 264.71(a)(v) or 265.71(a)(v). Based on e-Manifest data, EPA estimated the annual submittal rate for each method as shown in Table 9. The table shows that, on average annually during the 3-year life of this ICR, 2% of paper manifests will be submitted as mailed paper copies, 22% as image files, and 65% as data files and image files.

                                    Table 9
              Annual Manifest Submittal Rates, by Submittal Method
                               Submittal Method
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                3-Year Average
Mailed Paper
                                      6%
                                      0%
                                      0%
                                      2%
Image only
                                      18%
                                      24%
                                      24%
                                      22%
Data & Image
                                      75%
                                      60%
                                      60%
                                      65%
Electronic
                                      1%
                                      16%
                                      16%
                                      11%
Total
                                     100%
                                     100%
                                     100%
                                     100%

For purposes of this ICR, EPA estimates that Years 1, 2, and 3 of this ICR correspond approximately to calendar years 2021, 2022 and 2023. Beginning on June 30, 2021, mailed paper submissions will no longer be allowed; rather, facilities must submit copies by image only or data and image.

EPA has ascertained that 178 facilities currently mail paper copies to the system. The Agency estimates that each facility incurs a burden of 15 minutes/month to place their manifest copies in a package and mail it to EPA (3 hours/year). EPA estimates that they will continue to do so until June 30, 2021, incurring 1.5 hours during the 6-month period. Over the 3-year life of this ICR, this equates to 30 minutes/facility on average as reflected in Exhibit 17. Beginning on June 30, 2021, they will join the rest of the facility universe by submitting copies by image only or data set and image.

In regard to the 22% of manifests submitted by image only, EPA estimates that it takes a facility three minutes to scan and upload each copy on average.

In regard to the 65% of manifests submitted by data set and image, facilities have two options for submission. They can use either the Web method or Service method:

 Web method: The facility enters (e.g., key punches) data on each manifest into the e-Manifest system (10 minutes/manifest). Based on e-Manifest data, EPA estimates 240,490 copies are uploaded using this method annually.
 Service method: The facility upgrades and maintains its in-house data system (20 hours/month/facility), which uploads manifest data automatically.  Based on e-Manifest data, EPA estimates 294 facilities use this method annually.
 All facilities must scan and upload each manifest (3 minutes/copy).

These estimates are reflected in Exhibit 17.

      (d4)	Compliance with State Program Requirements

40 CFR 264.71(e) and 265.71(e) provide that TSDFs must determine whether they are required to comply with requirements specific to state hazardous waste manifest programs. Because these activities are required under state hazardous waste programs, they are not burdened in this ICR. This is reflected in Exhibit 17.

      (d5)	Discrepancy Reports

As reflected in Exhibit 17, EPA estimates that approximately 12% of manifests accepted by the designated facilities require reconciling discrepancies between the manifest data and the shipment (e.g. by phoning the generator). EPA further estimates that 2% of manifests accepted by the designated facility will require a discrepancy report under 40 CFR 264.72 or 265.72.

      (d6)	Rejected Waste and Container Residues

As shown in Exhibit 18, EPA estimates the burden for designated facilities to reject a shipment or identify and ship a container residue.

      (d7)	Post-Receipt Manifest Data Corrections

EPA expects each receiving facility (federal and state) to register with the e-Manifest system and have system access for corrections.   Based on e-Manifest data, EPA estimates that facilities will submit corrections or respond with comments for 2% of manifests (paper and electronic) accompanying federal and state waste annually, as reflected in Exhibit 19.

      (d8)	Unmanifested Waste Reports:  Completion and Submission

As shown in Exhibit 20, EPA estimates that receiving facilities will need to complete letters for shipments that arrive without a manifest, notifying the Agency of an un-manifested waste shipment.

      (d9)	Fees for the Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest Program

Exhibit 21 estimates the annual fee amount paid by facilities as well as other activities performed in compliance with 40 CFR Part 264 and 265, Subpart FF. The regulations set forth a methodology and requirements for EPA to calculate user fees for paper and electronic manifests. The national system will collect fees directly from TSDFs/receiving facilities, taking into account the submittal method and number of forms.

Table 6 estimates that 1,785,405 manifests will accompany federal and state waste manifests (electronic and paper) annually. Table 9 presents the average annual manifest submittal rates. Table 10 combines these data to estimate the annual number of manifests by submittal method for which fees must be paid.

                                   Table 10
       Annual Submittal Rates and Number Manifests, by Submittal Method*
 Submittal Method
                      3-Year Annual Average Percentage**
              Annual Number of Manifests For Which Fees Are Paid
Mailed Paper
                                      2%
                                    35,708
Image only
                                      22%
                                   392,789
Data & Image
                                      65%
                                  1,162,537
Electronic
                                      11%
                                   194,370
Total
                                     100%
                                   1,785,404
*Table includes rounding error.
**These average annual percentages are calculated in Table 9 of this document.  Averages include rounding.

Table 11 presents EPA's preliminary estimate of the average per-manifest user fees over the 3-year life of this ICR. Exhibit 21 applies these fees to the total annual number of manifests for which fees must be paid as shown in Table 10.

                                   Table 11
                  User Fees per Manifest, by Submittal Method
                               Submittal Method
                               Fee per Manifest
Mailed Paper
                                    $25.00
Image only
                                    $20.00
Data & Image
                                    $14.00
Electronic
                                     $8.00

The exhibit also estimates the burden to facilities for implementing the informal fee dispute resolution procedures at 40 CFR 264.1316 and 265.1316.

6E.	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

Respondent Tally

Exhibit 22 shows the total annual hour and cost burden to respondents. As shown in the exhibit, EPA estimates the annual respondent burden to be 2,362,089 hours and $118,940,729 including $29,043,234 in non-labor costs.

Agency Tally

Exhibit 23 shows the annual Agency hour and cost burden associated with all the requirements covered in this ICR. As shown in this exhibit, EPA estimates the annual Agency burden to be 89,663 hours and $28,333,677.

6F.	Reasons for Change in Burden

The currently approved Manifest ICR (0801.24) estimates an annual respondent burden of 2,502,500 hours. This ICR (0801.25) estimates an annual burden of 2,362,089 hours, which is a 140,411 hour decrease from the currently approved ICR. This decrease resulted from adjustments to ICR 0801.25.

Table 12 identifies the adjustments in ICR 0801.25, compares them to ICR 0801.24 and indicates the reason for the adjustment. The burden decrease in ICR 0801.25 results primarily from a decrease in the number of manifests in the manifest cycle (Adjustment 2). ICR 0801.24 estimates 1,381,909 forms in the manifest cycle, whereas ICR 0801.25 estimates 1,081,903 forms, which is a decrease of 300,006 forms. This 22% decrease in manifests affects most of the ICR's respondent activities and burden estimates. This includes form completion, transmittal (e.g., among third parties) and recordkeeping by generators, transporters and TSDFs/receiving facilities. The manifest estimates in both ICRs were developed based on EPA's analysis of the number of manifests in the e-Manifest system.

Note that the hour-decrease resulting from fewer manifests in the manifest cycle was partially offset because of EPA's improved methodology for estimating the burden for receiving facilities to submit paper-based copies to the e-Manifest (Adjustment 5). In preparing ICR 0801.25, EPA conducted consultations with receiving facilities and prepared a more detailed analysis of their burden for submitting scanned images only as well as data sets and scanned images. The improved methodology and updated data resulted in an increase in burden for these activities from 93,101 hours in ICR 0801.24 to 190,164 hours in ICR 0801.25.

Table 12 shows that total O&M costs were $25,698,841 in ICR 0801.24 and $28,972,277 in ICR 0801.25, an increase of $3,273,436 (Adjustment 6). The majority of these costs are attributable to the user fees paid by receiving facilities. The total annual user fee amount paid by facilities is estimated to be $23,346,212 in 0801.24 and $26,578,952 in ICR 0801.25, an increase of $3,232,740 (Adjustment 7). This increase in the user fee amount results from an improved estimation methodology and updated data in ICR 0801.25:

 Improved Methodology. When EPA prepared the currently approved ICR, the Agency did not have actual user fees (i.e., user fee/manifest) for the next 3 years. The Agency was in the process of preparing them but they were not publicly available yet. As such, the Agency did not estimate the total user fee amount collected from facilities based on actual user fees. As an alternative, EPA decided to approximate the total user fee amount paid by facilities collectively based on the Agency's total annual cost for developing and operating the e-Manifest over the next 3 years. Note that the purpose of the user fees is for EPA to recover its total annual e-Manifest costs. Hence, EPA estimated its total annual average e-Manifest cost (i.e., $23,346,212) and used it to approximate the total user fees that receiving facilities would pay collectively each year.

In preparing ICR 0801.25, EPA used currently published user fees for the coming year, along with the projected annual number of paper and electronic manifests, to estimate the total annual fee amount of $26,578,952. Because this estimate is based on actual user fees/manifest, it is a more accurate representation of the total fees expected to be paid by facilities collectively.

 Updated Data. In ICR 0801.25, EPA estimates that its total annual cost for developing and operating the e-Manifest will increase over the next 3 years, from about $23 million to $27 million. Because EPA's user fees are formulated to recover the Agency's costs, EPA projects a commensurate increase in the total user fees paid by facilities collectively.

                                   Table 12
            Comparison of Estimates in ICR 0801.24 and ICR 0801.25
                             Respondent Parameter
                                 ICR 0801.24*
                                  ICR 0801.25
                     Reason for Adjustment in ICR 0801.25
1. Total annual number of waste handlers using the manifest**
                                    215,677
                                    106,136
                            Updated e-Manifest data
2. Total annual number of manifests in manifest cycle***
                                   1,381,909
                                   1,081,903
                             Updated e-Manifest data
3. Total annual number of manifests submitted to National System
                                   1,765,974
                                   1,591,034
                            Updated e-Manifest data
4. Total annual number of manifests for which user fees are paid
                                   2,000,000
                                   1,785,404
                            Updated e-Manifest data
5.  Total annual burden to all facilities for submitting manifest copies to e-Manifest (hours)
                                    93,101
                                    190,164
                    Improved methodology and updated data
6. Total annual O&M costs
                                  $25,698,841
                                  $28,972,277
                     Improved methodology and updated data
7. Total annual user fees (O&M cost)****
                                  $23,346,212
                                  $26,578,952
                     Improved methodology and updated data
*Refer to ICR 0801.23 for these estimates. ICR 0801.23 was approved in January 2020 and amended by a Justification for No Material/Nonsubstantive Change (0801.24) in March 2020.
**EPA estimated 215,677 handlers based on e-Manifest data and the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final User Fee Rule. However, due to limitations in the methodology, it was an over-estimate. Since then, EPA improved its ability to query the e-Manifest for waste handler counts. The estimate of 106,136 handlers is based solely on e-Manifest data and is more accurate. Because 215,677 is an overestimate, the decrease of 109,541 handlers in ICR 0801.25 is an overestimate of the actual change. Note that the manifest counts in both ICRs are based solely on e-Manifest data and therefore are accurate.
***This includes form completion, transmittal to industry third parties, and recordkeeping performed by generators, transporters and TSDFs/receiving facilities
****Total annual user fees are a subset of total annual O&M costs.

6G.	Burden Statement

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden per response for this collection of information is estimated to average 60 minutes per paper manifest and 10 minutes per electronic manifest for generators; 20 minutes per paper manifest and 5 minutes per electronic manifest for transporters; and 30 minutes per paper manifest and 5 minutes per electronic manifest for owners and operators of receiving facilities designated on the manifest. Table 13 presents these estimates.

                                   Table 13
            Public Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden per Response
                                Waste Handlers
                          Time per Response (minutes)

                                Paper Manifest
                              Electronic Manifest
Generators
                                      60
                                      10
Transporters
                                      20
                                       5
Designated Facilities
                                      30
                                       5

The burden for reading the e-Manifest User Guide is estimated to be 2 hours per waste handler per year.

Burden means the total time, effort, and financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review the paper form 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 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. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0756, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), WJC West Building, 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 RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0756 and OMB Control Number 2050-0039 in any correspondence.


40939 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Notices PRODUCTS CONTAINING DINOTEFURAN AN ACTIVE INGREDIENT NOT INCLUDED IN ANY PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED PRODUCTS   Continued File Symbol Product Name % of Active Ingredient Proposed Use 33657   EU Dinotefuran 0.5% Multi Purpose RTU 0.5 Cockroaches ( including adult and immature stages), ants, boxelder bugs, centipedes, crickets, dermestids, firebrats, fleas, palmetto bugs, silverfish, sowbugs and waterbugs, spiders, ground beetles, pillbugs, scorpions houseflies, gnats, mosquitoes, small flying moths, grain beetles ( rusty, merchant and sawtoothed flour beetles ( red and confused), chocolate moths, cigarette beetles, clover mites, cluster flies, drugstore beetles, elmleaf beetles, rice weevils, lesser grain borers, tobacco moths, carpet beetles, bedbugs, whiteflies, aphids, army worms, exposed thrips, red mites, leafminers 33657   EG Dinotefuran 0.5% Ornamental and Vegetable RTU 0.5 Colorado potato beetle, leafhopper, lygus bug, aphids, pepper weevil, potato leafhopper 33657   GN Dinotefuran 0.2% Roach Bait Stations 0.2 Roaches 33657   GE Dinotefuran 0.5% Roach Bait Stations 0.5 Roaches List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: June 25, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   16928 Filed 7   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0204; FRL   7314   1]

Zinc Phosphide; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0204, must be received on or before August 8, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   7610; e mail address: jackson. sidney@ epa. gov.

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 North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

  Crop production ( NAICS 111)

  Animal production ( NAICS 112)

  Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)

  Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0204. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 27 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYN1. SGM 09JYN1 40940 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Notices Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0204. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0204. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0204. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0204. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 27 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYN1. SGM 09JYN1 40941 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Notices notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received pesticide petitions as follow proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 24, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petitions The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petitions is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petitions was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petitions summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4)

PP 2E6419, 1E6306, 1E6270, 1E6337, 9E5082, 0E6199, and 1E6292 EPA has received pesticide petitions ( 2E6419, 1E6306, 1E6270, 1E6337, 9E5082, 0E6199, 1E6292) from the IR 4 Project, Center for Minor Crop Pest Management, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902   3390 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR 180.284 by establishing tolerances for residues of the rodenticide zinc phosphide in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:   PP 2E6419 proposes to establish a tolerance in or on alfalfa, forage and alfalfa, hay at 0.1 parts per million ( ppm).   PP 1E6306 proposes a tolerance in or on barley, grain and barley, hay at 0.05 ppm, and barley, straw at 0.2 ppm.   PP 1E6270 proposes a tolerance in or on bean, dry, seed at 0.05 ppm.   PP 1E6337 proposes tolerances in or on beet, sugar, roots at 0.05 ppm and beet, sugar, tops at 0.2 ppm.   PP 9E5082 proposes a tolerance in or on potato at 0.05 ppm.   PP 0E6199 proposes a tolerance in or on timothy hay and timothy forage at 0.05 ppm.   PP 1E6292 proposes a tolerance in or on wheat grain; wheat, hay; and wheat, straw at 0.05 ppm. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the requests. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.

A. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. The rat acute oral lethal dose ( LD) 50 values for zinc phosphide technical ( 89% active ingredient ( a. i.) ranged from 13   35 milligrams/ kilogram ( mg/ kg) body weight ( bwt) and averaged 21 mg/ kg. The acute dermal LD50 was greater than 2,000 mg/ kg for zinc phosphide technical ( 94% a. i.) in rabbits. The 4   hour inhalation lethal concentration ( LC) 50 on end use product was less than 69 mg/ cubic meter( m3) air ( aerosol). Zinc phosphide was not irritating dermally to rabbit skin ( 94% a. i.) and caused only slight conjunctival redness, chemosis, and discharge in the rabbit's eyes. Zinc phosphide end use product did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs. No toxicology studies were identified by EPA which demonstrated the need for an acute dietary risk assessment ( 65 FR 49936). 2. Genotoxicity. Salmonella TAstrains of bacteria were exposed to zinc phosphide ( 97% a. i.) suspended in dimethyl sulfoxide ( DMSO), at doses up to 5,000 µ g/ plate, with and without metabolic activation ( S9). Zinc phosphide was negative for gene mutation in the Ames test. Mouse lymphoma cells were exposed to zinc phosphide ( 97% a. i.) with and without mammalian metabolic activation ( S9). Increased mutants at the thymidine kinase locus ( TK) were induced in a dose dependent manner at doses of 10 through 80 µ g/ mL (+/ S9). Zinc phosphide was positive for gene mutation in this mouse lymphoma assay. Mice were treated with zinc phosphide ( 97% a. i.) suspended in corn oil up to severely toxic levels ( 150 mg/ kg). No increased aberrations ( micronuclei) were induced. Zinc phosphide was negative for mutagenicity in this micronucleus test. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The requirements for a twogeneration reproductive toxicity study in rats and a developmental study on a non rodent species were waived in the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED Zinc Phosphide, EPA 738   R   98   006, July 1998). In a developmental toxicity study, the maternal no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) was determined to be 2.0 mg/ kg and the lowest effect level ( LEL) was 4.0 mg/ kg based on mortality. The developmental NOAEL was at or above 4.0 mg/ kg, which was the highest dose tested. 4. Short and intermediate term toxicity. Based on the acute dermal LD50 study in rabbits, no appropriate toxic effects were identified for risk assessment. In that study no mortalities were observed at 5,000 mg/ kg. At the lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) of 2,000 mg/ kg, there was a decrease in body weight. Based on the physical properties of the chemical, dermal absorption is expected to be very low, since zinc phosphide reacts with water and stomach acid to produce the toxic gas phosphine from oral, but not dermal exposure. As no endpoint of toxicological concern for dermal VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 27 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYN1. SGM 09JYN1 40942 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Notices exposure has been identified, no dermal penetration data were required. The requirement for an acute inhalation study has been waived; thus, zinc phosphide has been placed in Toxicity Category I for acute inhalation exposure. 5. Chronic toxicity. EPA has established the Reference Dose ( RfD) for zinc phosphide at 0.0001 mg/ kg/ day. This RfD is based on a subchronic oral study in rats with a NOAEL of 0.1 mg/ kg/ day and an uncertainty factor ( UF) of 1,000 based on increased mortality, increase in absolute and relative liver weight and hematological changes at the LOAEL of 1 mg/ kg/ day. An uncertainty factor of 100 was applied to account for both the interspecies extrapolation and intraspecies variability. An additional UF of 10 was applied to account for the lack of reproductive data, and the lack of chronic toxicity data in a non rodent species ( 65 FR 49936). 6. Animal metabolism. Since residues are expected to be minimal or nonexistent, the requirement for a metabolism study with zinc phosphide has been waived. If new uses result in detectable residues, then this requirement will be reinstated. 7. Metabolite toxicity. Since residues are expected to be minimal or nonexistent, the requirement for a metabolism study with zinc phosphide has been waived. 8. Carcinogenicity. The requirement for carcinogenicity studies has been waived for zinc phosphide because chronic exposure is expected to be negligible. 9. Endocrine disruption. There are no data available to suggest that zinc phosphide will adversely affect the immune or endocrine systems.

B. Exposures and Risks 1. From food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established ( 40 CFR 180.284) for the residues of phosphine resulting from the use of zinc phosphide, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities at levels ranging from 0.01 ppm in or on grapes to 0.1 ppm in or on grasses ( rangeland). Zinc phosphide uses on grapes, pasture, and rangeland grasses, sugar beets, and sugar cane are classified as food uses. Currently registered uses on alfalfa, barley, wheat, and timothy are classified as non food uses. The recently submitted petitions seek to amend the method of applications for these crops as follows: i. Alfalfa; from underground or in burrow builder, or bait box use to above ground broadcast application. The proposed application would limit the timing of application to the period during dormant season ( Idaho), or following removal of all cut alfalfa and prior to new growth obtaining 2 to 3 inches ( California and Idaho), ii. Barley and wheat; from dormant season use ( underground or in burrow builders) to above ground broadcast application prior to grain head formation. iii. Timothy; from dormant season use, with no animal grazing, to use during crop dormancy but permitting livestock grazing after 158 days. These types of applications are classified as food uses; therefore, a tolerance is required. There is no reasonable expectation of secondary residues in meat, milk, poultry, or eggs. Any residues of zinc phosphide ingested by livestock would be metabolized to naturally occurring phosphorous compounds. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures and risks from zinc phosphide applied as non food use as follows: Acute and chronic exposure and risk. Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a food use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1   day or single exposure. Currently, it is not known whether the proposed use of zinc phosphide on the subject crops will result in acute or chronic human dietary exposure to zinc phosphide. However, the petitioner notes the following: i. Zinc phosphide is not systemic ( i. e., it will not move to other portions of the plant such as roots and affect a root crop such as potatoes or sugar beets). ii. Residues of phosphine are less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05) in wheat and barley grain, in dry beans, in potatoes, in sugar beet roots, and in timothy hay. iii. The grain and sugar beet roots will be processed prior to human consumption. iv. There is no expectation of secondary residues in meat, milk, poultry, and eggs as a result of the registered and proposed uses. 2. From drinking water. Zinc phosphide degrades rapidly to phosphine and zinc ions both of which adsorb strongly to soil and are common nutrients in soil. Zinc phosphide and its degradation products appear to have low potential for ground water and surface water contamination. Therefore, dietary exposure is not expected from either ground water or surface water fed drinking water. 3. From non dietary exposure. Zinc phosphide is currently registered for use on residential non food sites. A detailed residential exposure assessment is contained in the RED for zinc phosphide ( RED Zinc Phosphide, EPA 738   R   98   006, July 1998). The residential exposure assessment evaluated exposure from accidental ingestion of zinc phosphide. No other residential exposure assessment was required. It is stated in the RED that the Agency believes that `` accidental ingestion'' of zinc phosphide baits should not be included in the FQPA determination for tolerance setting. 4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency considers `` available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and `` other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' Zinc phosphide, aluminum phosphide, and magnesium phosphide all generate phosphine gas. However, the toxicity from phosphine gas is an acute effect and is readily eliminated from the body. Aluminum and magnesium phosphide, unlike zinc phosphide which is a bait, are used in fumigations. Exposure to phosphine gas from both bait and fumigation treatments is highly unlikely. It is unclear whether zinc phosphide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides, where a cumulative risk approach is based on a common mechanism of toxicity, zinc phosphide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Acute and chronic risk. There are currently no drinking water, residential, or dietary components to acute and chronic aggregate exposure to zinc phosphide residues. Thus, acute and chronic aggregate exposure assessments were not required in the RED ( Zinc Phosphide, EPA 738   R   98   006, July 1998). 2. Short and intermediate term risk. Short and intermediate term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water ( considered to be a background exposure level) plus indoor and outdoor residential exposure. No short or intermediateterm dermal, oral or inhalation toxicological endpoints were identified for zinc phosphide. Thus, no short or intermediate term risk assessments were required in the RED ( Zinc Phosphide, EPA 738   R   98   006, July 1998). 3. Aggregate cancer risk for U. S. population. Although zinc phosphide is registered for use on food crops, no chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 27 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYN1. SGM 09JYN1 40943 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Notices studies were required because chronic exposure to zinc phosphide or its byproducts were considered to be negligible. Thus, data are not available to classify zinc phosphide in terms of carcinogenicity and a cancer risk assessment was not performed.

D. Determination of Safety 1. U. S. population. The RED set the RfD at 0.0001. EPA generally has no concerns for exposures below 100% of the RfD, because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. 2. Infants and children. The available data base for zinc phosphide does not indicate a potential for an increased sensitivity to infants or children; however it does not include a twogeneration reproductive toxicity study in rats or a developmental toxicity study for a non rodent species. The available data provided no indication of increased sensitivity of fetal rats to in utero exposure to zinc phosphide. The prenatal exposure developmental toxicity study in rats demonstrated no developmental effects at the highest dose tested ( 4.0 mg/ kg/ day) which was maternally toxic. There was no assessment of in utero exposure to nonrodents ( rabbits), nor was there an assessment of early postnatal exposure. The EPA did not require these studies because exposure from food sources is expected to be minimal to non existent. The additional uncertainty factor ( referred to in Section A. 5.) will also accommodate the inability to assess the potential for increased sensitivity of infants and children, because of the lack of sufficient animal data on in utero and early postnatal exposure to zinc phosphide ( a prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits and a twogeneration reproductive toxicity study in rats). Although residue studies show there were quantifiable residues in sugarcane, sugar beets, and grasses, these commodities are not direct human foods and no dietary consumption is expected. EPA has determined that there is no likelihood of residues of zinc phosphide occurring in any processed commodities. Also, there is no likelihood of residues of zinc phosphide or phosphine being found through transfer of residues on grasses to meat and milk. Based upon the likelihood that residues of zinc phosphide will not occur in processed commodities, milk and meat, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to zinc phosphide residues. E. Other Considerations 1. Metabolism in plants and animals. The nature of the residue in plants is adequately understood. The residue of concern is zinc phosphide measured as phosphine. There is no expectation of secondary residues in meat, milk, poultry, and eggs as a result of the registered uses. Residues of zinc phosphide ingested by livestock would be immediately converted to phosphine and metabolized to naturally occurring phosphorous compounds. 2. Analytical enforcement methodology. Adequate enforcement methodology ( colorimetric and GLC/ FPD) is available ( Pesticide Analytical Method II under aluminum phosphide) to enforce the tolerance expression. Residues were less than the limit of quantification in all raw agricultural commodities except for sugar beet tops ( 0.05 ppm for alfalfa, barley, grain and hay, dry beans, potatoes, sugar beet roots, timothy and wheat; 0.1 for barley straw), i. Barley grown in the state of Idaho was treated with two applications of zinc phosphide at approximately 0.12 lb a. i./ A per application, 23 to 28 days apart, and were harvested 50 or 60 days after the last application. Barley was also harvested 50 days following two applications at 0.96 lb a. i./ A ( 8X the proposed application rate). Residues were less than the limit of quantification for barley grain and hay ( 0.05 ppm) and straw ( 0.1). Because no residues were found in samples treated at the 8X rate, no processing study is needed. ii. Dry beans grown in the state of Idaho were treated with one application of zinc phosphide at approximately 0.12 lb a. i./ A, and were harvested 31 days after the application and allowed to dry in the field. Seven days after harvesting the beans were thrashed and samples taken. Residues were less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05 ppm) on this commodity. iii. Potatoes grown in the state of Idaho were treated with one application of zinc phosphide at approximately 0.2 lb a. i./ A, and were harvested 28 to 31 days later. Potatoes were also harvested 28 to 31 days later following an application at 1.0 lb a. i./ A ( 5x the proposed application rate). Residues were less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05 ppm) on this commodity. Because no residues were found in samples treated at the 5X rate, no processing study is needed. iv. Sugar beets grown in the state of Idaho were harvested 27 to 29 days following two treatments of zinc phosphide at approximately 0.2 lb a. i./ A. Sugar beets were also harvested 27 to 29 days following two treatments of zinc phosphide at approximately 4 lb a. i./ A ( 20X the proposed application rate). Residues were less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05 ppm) on sugar beet roots. Sugar beet tops contained some residue and a tolerance of 0.2 ppm is being proposed for sugar beet tops. Because no residues were found in roots treated at the exaggerated rate, there is no need for data from processed roots. ( OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 860.1520( f)( 3)( iii)). v. Timothy hay grown in the state of Washington was harvested 117 days following two treatments of zinc phosphide. The first treatment was at approximately 0.2 lb a. i./ A and the second treatment was at approximately 0.4 lb a. i./ A ( due to applicator error). The hay was allowed to dry in the field after harvest. Residues were less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05 ppm) on timothy hay and timothy forage at harvest. vi. Wheat grown in the state of Idaho was treated with two applications of zinc phosphide at approximately 0.12 lb a. i./ A per application, 22 to 28 days apart, and were harvested 56 to 60 days after the last application. Wheat was also harvested 56 days following two applications at 0.96 lb a. i./ A ( 8X the proposed application rate). Residues were less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05 ppm) for wheat grain, hay and straw. Because no residues were found in samples treated at the 8X rate, no processing study is needed. vii. Fresh alfalfa grown in the state of California was harvested 32 days following one treatment of zinc phosphide at approximately 0.2 lb a. i./ A. Fresh alfalfa was also harvested 32 days following one treatment of zinc phosphide at approximate 0.4 lbs a. i./ A ( 2X the proposed application rate). Residues were less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05 ppm) on fresh alfalfa. viii. Alfalfa hay and fresh alfalfa grown in the state of Nebraska were harvested 21 days following one treatment of zinc phosphide at approximately 0.2 lbs a. i./ A. Residues were less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05 ppm) on alfalfa hay and fresh alfalfa. ix. Alfalfa hay and alfalfa forage grown in the state of Idaho were harvested three times: 28   32 days, 78   83 days, and 121   129 days following the second of two treatments of zinc phosphide at approximately 0.2 lbs a. i./ A. Residues were less than the limit of quantification ( 0.05 ppm) on alfalfa hay and alfalfa forage. ( Petition for residue tolerance for alfalfa use in Idaho soon to be submitted.)

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 27 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYN1. SGM 09JYN1 40944 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2003 / Notices F. International Residue Limits No CODEX, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue levels have been established for zinc phosphide.

G. Rotational Crop Restrictions Data for confined accumulation in rotational crops have been waived because the physical properties of zinc phosphide precludes transfer of residues to rotated crops ( Zinc Phosphide RED, EPA 738   R   98   006, July 1998). Thus, rotational crop restrictions are not required. [ FR Doc. 03   17104 Filed 7   8   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPPT   2002   0056; FRL   7313   8]

1,1,2 Trichloroethane ( TCE); EPA Program Review: Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA), EPA issued a testing consent order ( Order) that incorporates an enforceable consent agreement ( ECA) relating to 1,1,2 trichloroethane ( TCE) ( CAS No. 79   00   5). The companies subject to this ECA, the Dow Chemical company; Vulcan Materials Company; Occidental Chemical Corporation; Oxy Vinyls, LP; Georgia Gulf Corporation; Westlake Chemical Corporation; PPG Industries, Inc.; and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U. S. A., have agreed to conduct toxicity testing, develop a computational dosimetry model for route to route extrapolations of dose response, and develop pharmacokinetics and mechanistic ( PK/ MECH) data that are intended to satisfy the toxicological data needs for TCE identified in a TSCA section 4 proposed test rule for a number of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) chemicals. This notice announces the availability of a report describing the findings and conclusions for the program review component of the ECA for TCE, responds to comments on the Tier I Program Review Testing, identifies modifications to Tier II ECA activities, and establishes revised deadlines for completion of Tier II testing and computational route dosimetry modeling for extrapolations listed under Tier II of the ECA for TCE.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Barbara Cunningham, Director, Environmental Assistance Division ( 7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 202) 554   1404; e mail address: TSCAHotline epa. gov. For technical information contact: Richard W. Leukroth, Jr., or John E. Schaeffer, Jr., Chemical Control Division ( 7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 202) 564   8157; e mail address: ccd. citb@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. EPA Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ( ID) number OPPT   2002   0056. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102   Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA docket center is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is ( 202) 566   1744 and telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA docket center, is ( 202) 566   0280. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background A. What is the EPA Program Review for TCE? In the Federal Register of October 16, 2002 ( 67 FR 63913) ( FRL   7275   8) EPA announced that it was conducting the program review component of the enforceable consent agreement ( ECA) for the 1,1,2 trichloroethane ( TCE) alternative testing program, and solicited public comment on data received under the Tier I Program Review testing segment of the ECA for TCE ( CAS No. 79   00   5). Comments were to inform EPA's decision on whether or not additional data and/ or model development are needed before Tier II testing and computational routeto route dosimetry modeling extrapolations can proceed for the Tier II endpoints listed in the ECA for TCE. Details of the testing program for TCE are available in the ECA and in the Federal Register of June 15, 2000 ( 65 FR 37550)( FRL   6494   5), in which EPA announced it had entered into an ECA and issued a testing consent order for TCE. The ECA for TCE was developed in response to EPA's request for ECA proposals for health effects testing of a number of hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs or HAP chemicals), including TCE ( see the proposed test rule in the Federal Register of June 26, 1996 ( 61 FR 33178) ( FRL   4869   1), and the proposed test rule, as amended, in the Federal Register of December 24, 1997 ( 62 FR 67466) ( FRL   5742   2); February 5, 1998 ( 63 FR 5915) ( FRL   5769   3); and April 21, 1998 ( 63 FR 19694) ( FRL   5780   6). The HAPs rulemaking proposed testing for health effects by the inhalation route of exposure. In the proposed rule, EPA also invited the submission of proposals that included pharmacokinetics studies and model development that would permit route to route dosimetry extrapolation to predict for inhalation exposures. The ECA for TCE applies such an alternative approach to satisfy VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 27 Jul 08, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09JYN1. SGM 09JYN1


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8861-8862]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2021-0033; OMB No. 1660-0145]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Federal Emergency Management Agency Programs Customer
Satisfaction Surveys

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60 Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
with change, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning the collection of Individual Assistance customer
satisfaction survey responses for FEMA programs and information for
assessment to improve the delivery of disaster assistance to
individuals and households.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket
ID FEMA-2021-0033. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandi Vironda, Statistician, Customer
Survey & Analysis Section, Recovery Directorate, FEMA at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the
Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection is in accordance with
Executive Orders 12862 and 13571 requiring all Federal Agencies to
survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they
want and their level of satisfaction with existing services. The
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) (Pub. L. 103-62, 107
Stat. 285) requires agencies to set missions and goals and measure
performance against them. In addition, the GPRA Modernization Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866) requires quarterly performance
assessments of government programs for the purposes of assessing agency
performance and improvement. FEMA will fulfill these requirements by
collecting customer satisfaction program information through surveys of
the Recovery Directorate's external customers.
    Two forms are being removed from this filing--Shelter and Temporary
Essential Power Survey (519-0-50) and Shelter and Temporary Essential
Power Survey (519-0-51).

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Emergency Management Agency Programs Customer
Satisfaction Surveys.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0145.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-181 (formerly 519-0-45),
Preparedness Survey--Electronic; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-180 (519-0-44),
Preparedness Survey--Phone; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-183 (519-0-47),
Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA) Survey--Electronic; FEMA Form
FF-104-FY-21-182 (519-0-46), Transitional Sheltering Assistance (TSA)
Survey--Phone; FEMA FF-104-FY-21-184 (Form 519-0-49), Temporary Housing
Units (THU) Survey--Electronic; FEMA Form FF-

104-FY-21-183 (519-0-48), Temporary Housing Units (THU) Survey--Phone;
FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-196, Sample Focus Group Moderator Guide; FEMA
Form FF-104-FY-21-197, Sample One-on-One Interview Guide; FEMA Form FF-
104-FY-21-198, Sample On-line Moderator Guide.
    Abstract: Federal agencies are required to survey their customers
to determine the kind and quality of services customers want and their
level of satisfaction with those services. Analysis from the survey is
used to measure FEMA's Strategic Plan's objective 3.1 to streamline the
disaster survivor experience.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households; Partners In Service
Staff.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,296.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 7,296.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,227.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $205,160.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $32,256.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $709,098.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent L. Brown,
Team Lead, Records Management Branch, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-03254 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-24-P