Peer Review Comments on:

Technical Background Document: Mercury Wastes Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury and Technical Background Document: Mercury Wastes Evaluation of Treatment of Mercury Surrogate Waste July 9, 2002 Submitted by:

Bill Batchelor 614 East 29th Street Bryan, Texas 77803 Submitted to:

Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Environmental Management Group 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, Virginia 20190 and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building Office of Solid Waste 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 EPA Contract No. 68 W0 1022 Work Assignment No. 0 2 SAIC Project No. 06 0758 08 4042 000 2 Review of Mercury Treatability Studies by Bill Batchelor 614 East 29th Street Bryan, Texas 77803 July 9, 2002 Review of " Evaluation of Mercury Surrogate Waste"

1. Was the experimental design of the study appropriate?

The experimental design employed was appropriate in most regards. One problem with the plan was the variability introduced by having vendors prepare the surrogate waste. Data in Appendix C shows that concentrations of potassium, calcium and magnesium were much higher in the surrogates prepared by all vendors than the surrogate prepared by Alter. Furthermore, the concentrations of chloride in surrogate waste prepared by Vendors A, B, and C were much higher than concentrations in the surrogate prepared by Alter and Vendor D. Chloride concentrations are particularly important because of the ability of chloride ions to form soluble complexes with mercury, thereby enhancing its release during leaching tests. Therefore, it is possible that the surrogate waste treated by Vendor D was " easier" to treat, than that treated by the other vendors. Vendor C reported using only about one half of the specified water in preparing its surrogate waste. The effect of reduced water content in the surrogate waste on performance in leaching tests is not clear, but the lack of consistency in surrogate waste preparation is undesirable. 3 2. Was the study conducted properly?

The conduct of the study appears to have been proper.

3. Were the stated objectives adequately met? ( Please note that we are asking you to focus your response son the stated objective listed above and not necessarily on all the objectives stated in the body of each study report.)

a) Effectiveness of meeting goal of 0.025 mg/ L in leaching tests i) TCLP Test The treatment process of Vendor A was able to consistently meet the goal ( 0.025 mg/ L) in the TCLP test by substantial margin ( concentrations < 0.01 mg/ L). There was little, if any,

difference between the treated materials in crushed or pellet forms. The ability of this treated waste to meet the goal was confirmed by its performance in the constant pH leaching test ( CPLT), in which concentrations were measured below the goal at pH values near that observed in the TCLP.

The treatment process of Vendor B was not able to meet the goal in any samples submitted. This performance was confirmed by the CPLT.

The treatment process of Vendor C was able to meet the treatment goal in all samples submitted ( Batch 1, Batch 2). The degree by which the goal was exceeded was greater in Batch 2 than Batch 1. This behavior was confirmed by performance in the CPLT, although concentrations were higher in the CPLT. 4 The treatment process of Vendor D was able to meet the treatment goal in one sample submitted ( Batch 1), but did not meet the treatment goal in another sample ( Batch 2). The average TCLP concentration for Batch 2 exceeded the goal, although one sub sample out of three was lower than the treatment goal. This performance was confirmed by performance of Batch # 2 in the CPLT. However, Batch # 1 gave a very high concentration in the CPLT near the pH of the TCLP. However, this point does not follow the general trend of the rest of the data for this treated waste or the treated wastes of other vendors, so it appears to be an outlier.

These results support the conclusion that there are existing stabilization technologies that can meet a TCLP goal of 0.025 mg/ L in wastes with mercury concentrations well in excess of 260 mg/ kg.

ii) Constant pH test Only a few ( pH 2, 8, 12) CPLT were replicated, so there is limited data to evaluate the reproducibility of the test procedure. The average relative percentage difference ( RPD) for all vendors was 35%, but many individual RPD exceeded 100%. This limits the confidence that can be placed on individual test results, especially when they approach the treatment goal.

The treatment process of Vendor A was able to meet the treatment goal at all pH values except pH 12. All samples meeting the goal did so by a substantial margin ( concentration < 0.01 mg/ L),

except one of the duplicates at pH 8. 5 The treatment process of Vendor B was not able to meet the treatment goal at any pH values,

except for both duplicates of one sample ( Phase II, pH 12).

The treatment process of Vendor C was able to meet the goal under some conditions. In general,

the goal could be met at higher pH and in Batch # 2. Both duplicates met the treatment goal in Batch # 2 at pH 8, but only one met the goal in Batch # 1 at that pH. Both duplicates met the treatment goal in Batch # 2 at pH 12, but neither did in Batch # 1 at that pH. The variability in performance between batches shown by the treatment process of Vendor C is not substantially different from that shown by treatment processes of other vendors. However, the treated waste provided by Vendor C produced concentrations in the CPLT that were near the treatment goal, so that there was more variation in whether a particular sample met the goal. The variability in performance of all treated wastes indicates the problems of heterogeneity of the waste and/ or variability in application of the treatment process The treatment process of Vendor D was not able to meet the goal, except at higher pH. At pH 12, three samples met the goal and one sample was at the goal ( 0.025 mg/ L). However, none of the samples at pH 12 exceeded the goal by a substantial margin (< 0.01 mg/ L).

b) Comparison of TCLP to constant pH leach test ( CPLT).

The CPLT is similar to the TCLP, but it does not duplicate all conditions of the TCLP. In addition to operating at different pH, the CPLT has a longer leaching time ( 14 days compared to 18 hours), different L/ S ratio ( 20 L/ kg dry mass compared to 20 L/ kg total mass) and uses a different leaching solution ( mixture of nitric acid and/ or sodium hydroxide compared to acetic 6 acid and possibly sodium hydroxide). These differences can lead to observing higher or lower concentrations in the CPLT compared to those measured in the TCLP, even when the CPLT is at the pH observed in the TCLP. Using a L/ S ratio defined in terms of dry mass rather than total mass will result in a greater amount of waste being used in the CPLT per unit volume of leachate compared to the TCLP. This would tend to lead to higher concentrations being measured in the CPLT. A longer leaching time in the CPLT would tend to result in the leaching solution approaching more closely to equilibrium conditions with the solids. This could result in higher or lower concentrations being observed, because concentrations in the TCLP test can be increasing or decreasing as the end of the leaching period approaches. Concentrations would tend to continuously increase for components whose solubility is not strongly affected by pH or when the pH of the leaching fluid does not change appreciably. However, concentrations of compounds that are strongly affected by pH would tend to increase initially when pH is low and then decrease as pH rises in the leaching fluid. The presence of nitrate rather than acetic acid/ acetate could affect leaching results when one or the other of these compounds forms stronger complexes with a metal being extracted.

The treated waste provided by Vendor A showed concentrations in the TCLP to be similar, but lower than concentrations in the CPLT when interpolated to the pH of the TCLP. However, the constant pH test resulted in some concentrations at other pH values that were much higher than observed for the TCLP at pH values different from that observed in the TCLP.

The treated waste provided by Vendor B showed good agreement in concentrations measured in the TCLP and in the CPLT, when concentrations in the CPLT are interpolated to the pH of the 7 TCLP. However, the CPLT resulted in some concentrations that were higher and lower than those measured in the TCLP, when measured at pH values different from those observed in the TCLP.

The treated waste provided by Vendor C showed similar concentrations measured in the TCLP and in the CPLT, when concentrations in the CPLT are interpolated to the pH of the TCLP.

However, the interpolated concentrations of the CPLT tended to be higher than those in the TCLP. However, the CPLT resulted in some concentrations that were much higher than those observed for the TCLP at pH values different from those observed in the TCLP.

The treated waste provided by Vendor D showed similar concentrations in both leach tests, when compared at the same pH and when the result in the CPLT at pH 10 for Batch # 1 is considered an outlier. This point should be considered an outlier because it is much higher than the general trend at other pH values for Batch # 1 and very different from that observed for Batch # 2 at pH 10. The CPLT resulted in some concentrations that were much higher than those observed for the TCLP at pH values different from those observed in the TCLP.

In general, the two test procedures provided similar results when compared at the same pH. In some cases, the concentrations measured in the TCLP tended to be a little lower than those observed by interpolating concentrations measured in the CPLT to the pH of the TCLP. This could be due to the fact that the TCLP has a higher effective L/ S and shorter leaching time than the CPLT. The CPLT also produced concentrations at other pH values that could be much higher than those measured in the TCLP. 8 Review of " Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury"

1. Was the experimental design of the study appropriate?

The experimental design was generally appropriate. One exception was the failure to confirm that waste loadings ( elemental mercury loadings) were as reported by the vendors. The report does not present any data supporting the reported waste loadings. The experimental plan calls for mercury concentrations in the waste forms to be determined, but these data are not presented.

These concentrations would be a check on the reported waste loadings and should be reported.

Identifying the concentrations of mercury in the waste forms among the raw data in Appendix B is difficult. However, an attempt was made to identify these concentrations and it appears that the mercury contents of treated solids from some vendors were much lower than expected from reported waste loadings. The highest concentration reported for a solid from vendor A ( samples 01 to 10, p B 98) is 16,400 mg/ kg, compared to a concentration of 330,000 mg/ kg expected from the reported waste loading of 33%. The highest concentration found for a solid treated by Vendor B ( samples 34 to 43 on p B 154, B 155) is 285,000 mg/ kg compared to concentrations of 550,000 mg/ kg and 440,000 mg/ kg expected for waste loadings of 55% ( Phase I) and 44%

( Phase II). Other concentrations are reported in this group that are much lower. The highest concentration found for a solid treated by Vendor C is 10,700 mg/ kg ( samples 9 to 13, p. B 67)

compared to a concentration of 201,000 mg/ kg expected for a waste loading of 20.1%.

Recoveries of metals from treated wastes are often less than expected. Low recoveries can be the result of inadequate analytical procedures for measuring metals in solids that have been 9 treated with the intent to reduce the availability of the metal. No information was given concerning the dissolution procedures used on the treated wastes to solubilize mercury prior to analysis. The only procedure specified ( SW 846 Method 7470A) is a method for analyzing mercury in aqueous solutions. Therefore, there is no way to determine if the dissolution procedure could be expected to reliably recover mercury. Regardless of the reason for the low recoveries for treated wastes submitted by Vendors A and C, they are so low that they cast doubt on the meaningfulness of the results of leaching tests.

2. Was the study conducted properly?

The study was conducted properly, with the exception of assuring that waste loadings were as reported by the vendors.

3. Were the stated objectives adequately met? ( Please note that we are asking you to focus your response son the stated objective listed above and not necessarily on all the objectives stated in the body of each study report.)

a) Effectiveness of meeting goal of 0.025 mg/ L in leaching tests i) TCLP Test The treated material prepared by Vendor A did not generally meet the goal of 0.025 mg/ L mercury in the TCLP test, although one sample of the palletized material met the goal by a small margin. This behavior was generally confirmed by the CPLT, which showed similar, but generally higher, concentrations interpolated to the pH values measured in the TCLP. 10 The treated material prepared by Vendor B did meet the treatment goal and it did so by a substantial margin ( all concentrations below 0.01 mg/ L). The total mercury analysis for the material supplied by this vendor may have been high enough to support the reported waste loading ( see response to question 1, above). The behavior in the TCLP was supported by similar behavior in the CPLT near the pH of the TCLP test.

The treated material prepared by Vendor C did meet the TCLP goal, but not by a substantial margin. Concentrations measured in all samples were below 0.025 mg/ L, but above 0.010 mg/ L.

However, the reproducibility was very good, with a coefficient of determination of 9%. The behavior in the TCLP was partially confirmed by the CPLT. The concentration at the TCLP pH ( pH 6.7) interpolated from data from the CPLT was similar, but somewhat higher. The interpolated concentration in the CPLT was strongly influenced by the CPLT data point at pH 6,

which was somewhat lower than those measured at pH 4 and pH 8. The ability of this treated material to reliably pass the TCLP goal is also brought into question by indications that concentrations of total mercury may have been measured in the treated material that are much lower than what would be expected from the reported waste loading ( see response to question 1,

above).

ii) Constant pH test The treated material prepared by Vendor A did not meet the goal of 0.025 mg/ L in the CPLT except at pH 2 ( pellets and crushed samples) and pH 11 ( pellets). The behavior in the CPLT was generally confirmed by that in the TCLP when concentrations are compared near the pH of the 11 TCLP. However, interpolated concentrations in the CPLT tended to be generally higher than those measured in the TCLP.

The treated material prepared by Vendor B did meet the goal in the CPLT, except at pH 12. The behavior in the CPLT was generally confirmed by that in the TCLP when compared by interpolating CPLT data to the pH of the TCLP.

The treated material prepared by Vendor C generally did not meet the goal in the CPLT. Two samples at pH 12 had concentrations ( 0.0251 mg/ L and 0.0249 mg/ L) that were substantially the same as the treatment goal. The concentrations measured in the TCLP at pH 6.7 were similar to that measured in the CPLT at pH 6, but substantially lower than that measured at pH 8.

General Comments 1. Are you aware of any other data/ studies that are relevant to the assessment of stabilized mercury bearing wastes and the behavior of these wastes in the environment?

The following articles are relevant to this topic.

" Stabilization/ solidification ( S/ S) of mercury containing wastes using reactivated carbon and Portland cement", Zhang, Jian; Bishop, Paul L. Journal of Hazardous Materials ( 2002), 92( 2), 199 212. " Sulfide induced stabilization and leachability studies of mercury containing wastes", Piao, Haishan; Bishop, Paul, Abstracts of Papers, 223rd ACS National Meeting, Orlando, FL, United States, April 7 11, 2002 ( 2002), ENVR 207. " Phosphate induced mercury stabilization", Zhang, Jian; Bishop, Paul L., Preprints of Extended Abstracts presented at the ACS National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Division of Environmental Chemistry ( 2001), 41( 1), 422 424. " Sulfide induced mercury stabilization", Piao, Haishan; Bishop, Paul L., Preprints of Extended Abstracts presented at the ACS National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Division of Environmental Chemistry ( 2001), 41( 1), 428 431. " Stabilization of radioactively contaminated elemental mercury wastes", Stewart, Robin; Broderick, Tom; Litz, John; Brown, Cliff; Faucette, Andrea., Proceedings of the 12 International Conference on Decommissioning and Decontamination and on Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Management, Denver, Sept. 13 18, 1998 ( 1998), 3 33 36. " Mercury stabilization in chemically bonded phosphate ceramics", Wagh, Arun S.; Jeong, Seung Young; Singh, Dileep, Ceramic Transactions ( 1998), 87( Environmental Issues and Waste Management Technologies in the Ceramic and Nuclear Industries III), 63 73. " A Framework for Risk Assessment of Disposal of Wastes Treated by Solidification/ Stabilization", Batchelor, B., Environmental Engineering Science, 14( 1): 3 13, 1997. " A study of immobilization of four heavy metals by solidification/ stabilizatioin with Portland cement", Susan A. Trussell, Ph. D. Dissertation, Texas A& M Univeristy, College Station, Texas, 1994. " Immobilization of chromium and mercury from industrial wastes", Wasay, S. A.; Das, H. A. , J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A ( 1993), A28( 2), 285 97. Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes, Jesse R. Conner, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990. " An investigation of mercury solidification and stabilization in portland cement using x ray photoelectron spectroscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy", McWhinney, Hylton G.; Cocke, David L.; Balke, Karl; Ortego, J. Dale., Cem. Concr. Res. ( 1990), 20( 1), 79 91. " Studies of zinc, cadmium and mercury stabilization in OPC/ PFA mixtures", Poon, C. S.; Perry, R., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. ( 1987), 86( Fly Ash Coal Convers. By Prod.), 67 76. " Permeability study on the cement based solidification process for the disposal of hazardous wastes", Poon, C. S.; Clark, A. I.; Perry, R.; Barker, A. P.; Barnes, P., Cem. Concr. Res. ( 1986), 16( 2), 161 72. " Mechanisms of metal fixation and leaching by cement based fixation processes", Poon, C. S.; Clark, A. I.; Peters, C. J.; Perry, R., Waste Manage. Res. ( 1985), 3( 2), 127 42. " Mechanisms of metal stabilization by cement based fixation processes", Poon, C. S.; Peters, C. J.; Perry, R.; Barnes, P.; Barker, A. P., Sci. Total Environ. ( 1985), 41( 1), 55 71.

Additionally, a database is being prepared that will contain information on many characteristics of wastes. This will include those containing mercury. The final report has not been prepared but information is available at http:// www. concrete. cv. ic. ac. uk/ iscowaa/ nnapics/ intro. html 2. With regard to the disposal of treated mercury wastes, are additional studies warranted for other factors that impact solubility ( e. g., liquid/ solid ratio, redox conditions, leachate composition) or affect ability to leach, such as use of macroencapsulation? If you believe that additional studies are needed , please explain why. 13 These studies have adequately demonstrated that a goal of 0.025 mg/ L in the TCLP can be met by existing stabilization technologies, both for a surrogate waste containing various forms of mercury at a total concentration of 5,000 mg/ kg and for elemental mercury. However, meeting this goal does not insure that adequate protection of human health and the enviornment is assured for all conditions of waste disposal. However, this statement is not limited to mercury wastes, but is a limitation of the TCLP for all hazardous constituents. Therefore, additional studies are not warranted to determine if existing technologies can meet a TCLP goal of 0.025 mg/ L for wastes that contain mercury at concentrations above 260 mg/ kg. However, additional studies are warranted to develop characterization methods and analytical techniques that will insure safe disposal of hazardous wastes containing toxic materials including mercury under a range of site specific disposal conditions.

3. Do you agree that the following statements are supported by the research results?

a. Site specific disposal conditions must be considered along with appropriate treatment technology as decisions are made about disposal of mercury wastes.

These research results do support this statement, because they demonstrate that pH can have an important impact on the amount of mercury leached from treated wastes. The pH of a leaching fluid can be very different under different disposal conditions. However, the research results do not prove the statement, because there could be conditions under which a waste could be characterized so that site specific disposal conditions would not be required to insure a reasonable degree of confidence in protection of human health and the environment. 14 b. The presence of chloride ions in a given disposal environment may significantly impact the release from a treated waste form ( mercury selenide).

This statement is supported by the research results, because a leaching solution with 500 mg/ L chloride did result in higher concentrations of mercury being leached at pH 7 and 10. However,

the data reported is not sufficient to conclude that chloride will ( rather than may) significantly impact release of mercury under a range of disposal conditions. Sufficient data exists on formation of mercury chloride soluble complexes to strongly suggest that chloride will tend to increase mercury release, but specific conclusions on the impact of particular levels of chloride in different disposal scenarios would require additional research.

4. Any additional comments?

The following corrections should be made to the reports.

a) " Evaluation of Mercury Surrogate Waste" ( various places) The relationship of ALTER and the University of Cincinnati should be clarified. It appears that the two are used interchangeably. This comment also applies to " Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury". ( p. 2 5, bullet 3) should be "< 260 ppm" ( p. 3 4, line 5 from bottom and elsewhere) Provide units for liquid/ solid ratio. This comment also applies to " Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury". ( p. 5 1, Table 5 1 and others) Percentages should be reported with no more significant digits than the measurements upon which they are based. This comment also applies to " Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury". ( p. 5 1, Table 5 1 and others) The leaching fluid used in the TCLP tests should be specified. This comment also applies to " Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury". ( p. 5 5, Table 5 4, columns 2,3,6,7) Replace " 3/ 4" with blank or other indication that presenting the percent leached is not appropriate for a blank.

b) " Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury" ( p. 3 2) It would be helpful to the reader to make more clear here that the " waste" being treated is elemental mercury. ( p. 5 4, Table 5 3) Standard deviation of TCLP results for Phase II should be 0.00160. ( p. 5 6, Figure 5 3) TCLP data are missing from this figure.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 32851]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0692]

Equivalency Determination for ``Marine Charts,'' ``Charts,'' or
``Maps,'' ``Publications,'' and Navigation Functions--Notice of
Availability of Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 01-16 Change
1

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard (USCG) is announcing, the availability of
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-16 change 1. The
NVIC provides that display of certain electronic charts and
publications will meet--as an equivalency--the ``marine charts,''
``charts,'' ``maps,'' or ``publications'' carriage requirements and
provides for an equivalency for position fixing and plotting. USCG
intends, by this policy, to provide a path for U.S. flagged vessels to
replace paper charts and most hard copy publications if so desired.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please address questions or feedback
concerning this policy to LCDR Matthew Walter, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In response to recommendations from Coast
Guard Federal Safety Advisory Committees, industry stakeholders and
agency partners, the Coast Guard updated its original policy on
electronic charts and publications. Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) 01-16 change 1 is revised to focus on the equivalency
determination for charts, publications and, newly added, navigation
functions. It only accepts certain electronic charts as described. It
requires vessels that operate offshore to display charts on certain
systems. It describes the minimum performance requirements for
equipment receiving position information and restates our policy on
electronic navigation publications.
    Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires ``currently
corrected marine charts'' of a large enough scale and with enough
detail to make safe navigation possible. In 2002, the Coast Guard
authorized U.S. flagged SOLAS-compliant vessels to use an Electronic
Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) in lieu of paper
charts.\1\ That policy did not apply to the U.S. flagged vessels
engaged solely on domestic voyages. Therefore, the Coast Guard is
publishing an equivalency to address electronic chart carriage on those
vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 67 Federal Register 53382 as amended by 69 Federal Register
42192, Carriage of Navigation Equipment for Ships on International
Voyages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title 33 of the CFR 164 also requires that some vessels fix their
position \2\ and other vessels fix and plot their position.\3\ The USCG
recognizes the benefit of real-time positioning data, and that it can
provide greater situational awareness than what could be achieved using
paper charts. Therefore, USCG is announcing an equivalency to fixing
and plotting. Title 33 of the CFR, along with the International
Convention of Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Chapter V Regulation 27,
also requires currently corrected editions of, or applicable currently
corrected extracts from, nautical publications necessary for the
intended voyage. In 2010, USCG announced policy accepting some
electronic publications in lieu of paper publications.\4\ NVIC 01-16
change 1 does not substantively change this USCG publication policy,
but rather consolidates information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 33 CFR 164.11 & 164.78--Self-propelled vessels 1600 or more
gross tons and towing vessels 12 meters or more in length.
    \3\ 33 CFR 164.11--Self-propelled vessels 1600 or more gross
tons.
    \4\ CG-543 Policy Letter 10-05 canceled and replaced by
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 01-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, NVIC 01-16 change 1 also provides guidance to marine
inspectors regarding how to identify approved and/or appropriate
electronic charts, display systems, position information and electronic
publications. Finally, this Circular recommends practices that vessel
owners and operators should consider when navigating with the
assistance of electronics.
    This Circular is not a substitute for applicable legal
requirements, nor is it itself a rule. It does not provide equivalence
for the purposes of SOLAS certificates. Mariners are responsible to
safely navigate and follow applicable regulatory requirements.

    Dated: July 10, 2017.
RADM Paul F. Thomas,
Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017-15056 Filed 7-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34569-34570]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15585]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2017-0002-N-3]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request; Work Force Development Survey

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation. (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and comment request.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request
(ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and
its expected burden.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Office of Administration, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (This telephone number is not toll free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506,
3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1), and 1320.12. On March 29, 2017, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 82 FR 15417. FRA
received no comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes the 30-day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summary below describes the ICR and its expected burden. FRA is
submitting the new request for clearance by OMB as the PRA requires.
    Title: Workforce Development (WFD) Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-NEW.
    Abstract: The FRA has statutory responsibility to ensure the safety
of railroad operations as prescribed in the Federal Railroad Safety Act
of 1970 (49 U.S.C. 20103). To conduct safe railroad operations, the
workforce must have the requisite skills to operate equipment and
technologies. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the FRA to promote
workforce development policy and standards to ensure the workforce has
the necessary skills and talent to conduct safe railroad operations.
Due to an increasingly dynamic and maturing workforce combined with
changing skills requirements imposed by newly introduced technologies,
there is an increasing risk in not having the necessary talent pools to
fill critical railroad operational positions. In 2011, FRA published
the first Railroad Industry Modal Profile: An Outline of the Railroad
Industry Workforce Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities, which
provided a comprehensive overview of the railroad industry workforce as
of December 31, 2008. This document is available to the public through
the FRA Web site. The Railroad Industry Modal Profile was a response to
the DOT National Transportation Workforce Development Initiative that
required each DOT Operating Administration to produce an analysis of
its industry workforce.
    The prevailing workforce concerns during the early stages of the
DOT National Transportation Workforce Development Initiative were the
large number of retirement-eligible employees in transportation related
fields and the national shortage of science, technology, engineering,
and math graduates. Since the railroad industry had done very little
hiring in the late 1980s and throughout most of the 1990s, the
retirement-eligible population became quite large, even beyond that of
most other industries and transportation modes (each of which were also
grappling with similar retirement population concerns).
    These concerns create risk in maintaining a viable workforce, and
to take effective and efficient action to minimize these risks, FRA
requires trustworthy information on current WFD strategies and
challenges. Initial

data collected for the modal profile established a baseline
understanding of the risks and status. However, to validate and further
develop the understanding of the risks, this survey is being proposed.
With this submission, FRA is requesting permission to acquire the
needed knowledge regarding the workforce.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Affected Public: Class I freight and passenger railroads, short
line and regional railroads, labor unions, major associations, academia
and specialty experts.
    Form(s): FRA Form 240.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 91.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 30.5 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding these information collections to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA
Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the
following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for DOT to properly perform its
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of DOT's estimates of the burden of the proposed
information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collections of information on respondents, including the
use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Sarah L. Inderbitzin,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-15585 Filed 7-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P