Final Supporting Statement

for Information Collection Request

Certification and In

- use Testing of Motor Vehicles:

Revisions to Reduce Light

- Duty Vehicle Emissions of Greenhouse Gases :

Model Years 2017

– 2025

EPA ICR 0783.6 2

August , 201 2

Compliance Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyPart A

SUBMISSION Section 1: Identification Of The In formation Collection

1(a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection

Certification and In

- use Testing of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Reduce Emissions

of Light

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gases

, Model Year 2017

- 2025 ; EPA ICR number

0783.6 2 , OMB control number 2060

- 0104

.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

Introduction and Short Characterization

The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration are jointly finalizing Light

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards changes designed to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) for model year (MY) 2017 to 2025 light duty vehicles (LDVs)

. This is a n extension of the national GHG program rulemaking recently completed for MY 2012 to 2016 (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010). This ICR deals with EPA’s portion of the rule , which concerns EPA’s motor vehicle

certification and in

- use testing programs, covered by th e ICR 0783 series. As with the ICR on the prior rule, EPA is not aware of, and has not analyzed, any NHTSA

- specific paperwork burdens in this ICR. Th e ICR addresses changes to paperwork burdens on these programs dealt with in the ICR on the MY 2012

– 2016 final rule (ICR 0783.58)

, which include d the cost of upgrading information systems to comply with new reporting requirements, and new testing requirements. Other economic impacts, such as the industry’s costs of complying with the new standards, are discussed in the cost analysis portions of the preamble and Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with the regulations. Th at e conomic analysis includes "cost markups for manufacturer indirect costs" based on multiplie rs. The individual components of those indirect costs, such as paperwork

costs, were not specifically addressed.

At OMB’s request, EPA previously disaggregated the 0783 certification ICR into separate Information Collections (ICs) for Emissions (also cal led Certification) and Fuel Economy (as well as ICs for DR/VERR defect reporting, IUVP in

- use testing, and highway motorcycles). As with ICR 0783.58, the burdens in this ICR have been

allocated to the emissions and IUVP ICs , even though the rule includes c hanges to EPA’s fuel economy regulations and the emissions reporting is done in a CAFE

compatible format.

Some of the changes occur as early as MY 2012, and constitute modifications of the prior rule. Other changes will start taking effect with 201 7 mod el year light

- duty vehicles and will phase in through model year 20 25

. The core of the rule is to set standards for emissions of greenhouse gasses for MY 2017

- 2025 , continuing the information reporting structure established in the prior rulemaking. Most of the costs3

associated with the rulemaking therefore involve an assessment of the available technology and the costs of using it and as such and are outside the scope of this ICR. In addition, the standards incorporate assumptions about the extent to whi ch credits based on air conditioning improvements will be used for compliance . These and other credit and incentive provisions in the rule have to be applied for with the submission of

information to EPA. All credits and incentives that are alternatives to the normal emissions based methods of compliance with the standards will presumptively be used because they are less expensive that the normal methods of meeting the standards, even when taking the information costs into account. P aperwork burdens of these optional credits and incentives should be considered in the context of an overall lowering of the manufacturer's costs of compliance with the rule.

ICRs normally have a three year time horizon. Those portions of this rule that go into effect with MY 2017 largely will fall outside the normal time horizon of an ICR, other than preparator y work, familiarization , and provisions that go into effect within three years of the final rule . This ICR will adjust the burdens authorized in t he prior

ICR covering MY 2012

- 2016

, where appropriate

, and will discuss paperwork burdens that may change the authorized level after that without attempting to quantify cost impacts that

the rule’s cost study itself deem s speculative . (In addition, possib le reductions in the burden

after 2017 for some line items should not be counted until they go into effect because doing so could potentially cause noncompliance with the authorization prior to that

, to the extent

that the authorization is considered as ba sed on the entire ICR cost analysis and not on merely on its aggregate results .) Furthermore , the rule includes a "mid

- term evaluation" to be completed by 2018 , which may provide information for adjustments to the model years beyond that.

In many cases

, this ICR cost analysis includes both high and low cost estimates; unless otherwise indicated, the burden estimates given below are the high

- cost
estimates. T he rule changes will result in new costs (high estimate) of about $ 1, 399

, 632 annually in capital and operations and maintenance costs with a n increase in labor hours

of 5, 667 annually on the regulated manufacturers compared to the baseline after the prior MY 2012

- 2016 GHG rule

.

Summary of the MY 2017

- 2025 GHG Rule’s New Paperwork

- Affecting Features

This summary gives necessary background for the estimations given in Part 6.

Starting with model year 201 7 , manufacturers will be required to meet increasingly stringent greenhouse gas emissions limits through 2025 , beyond those specified in the prior rule for 2012 to 2016 . These limits will be enforced through the certification program. As with the existing program, a veraging, banking, and trading (ABT) will be available; l ight

- duty vehicles (cars), light

- duty

- trucks, and medium

- duty

passenger ve hicles seeking certificates of authority to sell vehicles in the United States will be required to submit CO 2 test results and other information in suppor t of certification applications; and all certified vehicles will be subject to the requirements

of the In

- Use Vehicle Testing Program (IUVP)

. This ICR considers the costs associated4

with submitting this information to EPA, including the costs of generating the information to be submitted, such as testing costs, and facility and equipment costs to

conduct t he testing. The ICR calculates the changes in the baseline information burden, based on changes in the existing GHG program, the major outlines of which were

established in the prior rule and costed in the prior ICR.

The prior ICR included new testing c osts associated with air conditioning credits because the level of credit attainment was included in the compliance standards. It also included new IUVP testing costs due to the requirement that the highway fuel efficiency test be added for the test fleet. Both of these had a capital cost component for the facilities needed to conduct the tests, and there were startup capital costs for N2O analyzers and for information system updating. Estimates were also made for the more direct burden increases for report ing and recordkeeping , including estimated paperwork

burdens for the other credits

. This ICR incorporates an updated estimate of the costs of N2O analyzers, and a dditional and updated costs for information and familiarization with the regulations.

This rule includes an updated estimate of the number of manufacturers affected by the GHG standards, the number of small businesses exempt from the standards, and brings in some small volume manufacturers exempted in the prior rule . The prior ICR

assumed 53 man ufacturers, of which 20 were small businesses which are exempt from GHG standards, for a total of 33 respondents . The current ICR also assumes 33 respondents

. ( EPA is exempting p olice and emergency vehicles beginning with

MY201 2 , but the test

- group level impact of this, if any, is likewise too limited to quantify at this time.) These changes result in adjustments to the prior ICR's testing, facility, capital, and gene ral reporting burden estimates.

The prior MY 2012

- 2016 rule r equires SVMs to make a good faith effort to secure credits from other manufacturers, if they are reasonably available, to cover the emissions reductions they would have otherwise had to achieve under applicable standards. These SVMs are otherwise exempt f rom the CO 2 standards. Eligible manufacturers are SVMs

hav ing vehicle sales of less than 5,000 per year (three

- year rolling average) in the U.S. There are currently three manufacturers that qualify under this definition. The high cost estimate for

purpose s of the reporting requirements assessment assumes five and the low, three. Under

the MY 2017

- 2025 final rule, SVMs can petition EPA by July 30, 2013 for alternative

standards that would go into effect beginning MY 2017 . This petition requires submission of detailed supporting information that imposes a new information collection burden. The analysis assumes all three or five will submit this information. The first petition and ruling could be followed by an indeterminate number of additional petitions and standards in subsequent years covering model years through 2025. This burden is reduced by the fact that the submission is similar to those required in support of similar alternatives already required beginning prior to 2017 by NHTSA for CAFE, and the Eur opean Union. It is also reduced by the fact that the application and the standards that result can cover up to five model years.5

EPA requested comments on and is finalizing extending the SVM standards eligibility to manufacturers that are able to de monstrate that they are operationally independent from their parent company. EPA received only supportive comments regarding extending SVM alternative standards to manufacturers able to demonstrate operational independence. EPA knows of only one likely r espondent for the operational independence

criteria EPA and therefore does not expect the criteria to be widely used. For this ICR, EPA estimates that a low of one and a high of two manufacturers will apply for SVM standards under the operational independ ence provisions. EPA has included an estimate of the burden associated with applying for operational independence determination and have increased the total estimate of manufacturers eligible for SVM standards from 3 to 5 manufacturers to 4 to

7 manufactu rers.

M uch of the rule that affects reporting deals with modifications to the credit and incentive provisions of the prior rule. M anufacturer s cho ose between 1 ) tailpipe attainment of CO2 emissions standards without credits or incentives, and 2 ) applicat ion and qualification for use of one or more of the available optional credits and incentives.

The rule makes a distinction between incentives, the AC credit, and other credits, where the AC credit is incorporated into the fleet emission standards because the extent to which it is achievable industry wide was considered calculable, whereas in the other

cases it was not. In the case of AC , the calculation is in terms of vehicle numbers under

an econometric model rather than manufacturers and test groups relevant to the paperwork burden

. The provisions that are modified or new are summarized below:

1) Overcompliance and undercom pliance credits , debits, trading and transfers are unchanged, except that a carry forward of more than five years (to 2021) is added for credits that were earned during the initial MY 2010

– 2016 period.

2) Air conditioning improvement tests : the previou s CO2 credits for emissions, refrigerant leak age , and global warming improvements remain. EPA is incorporating air conditioning improvements in its CO2 standards, leaving manufacturers the option of achieving those standards by applying for the credit or b y other means. Therefore, there is no assumption about how many manufacturers will apply for the credit; the full amount of

the achievable reduction is incorporated in the standard, and manufacturers can achieve that

reduction however they wish. The analys is in the previous ICR that assume d most or all manufacturers will apply for the credit is maintained in this ICR. Minor changes in the leakage credit showing are accounted for in the "familiarization" burden estimate. The possible need for some manufacturers to upgrade their refrigerant storage facilities and charging stations on the assembly line in order to comply with the CO2 emissions standards to the extent that they incorporate assumptions about use of alternative refrigerants, is regarded as a cost of compliance rather than reporting

.

E PA is also finalizing changes to the test procedures used for optional A/C credits

. EPA is replacing the Idle Test with a new “AC17” test procedure beginning in MY 2017. The AC17 test procedure is option al prior to MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020,6

manufacturers will also need to use AC17 testing to demonstrate that the A/C efficiency

improving technologies or systems on which the desired credits are based are indeed reducing CO 2 emissions and fuel consumpt ion. Th e AC17 test is more expensive from a testing and paperwork standpoint but only applies to "platforms", a smaller class than "test groups" so that, depending on the number of platforms tested , it could either increase or decrease the testing burden associated with the A/C credit. In response to manufacturer comments, EPA adopted some relatively minor technical changes that EPA agrees will make performance of the test more efficient, with no appreciable effect on test

accuracy includ ing provisions re lating to: the points during the test when cell solar lamps are

turned on ; establishing a specification for test cell wind speed ; and a simplific Th e AC17

test is reflected in an increased range of the high and low estimates for this paperwork

cost item in this ICR , while the underlying cost assumptions for AC testing are retained

.

EPA received comments from manufacturers raising concerns regarding the number of AC 17 test that would be required. In response to these concerns, EPA has

taken several steps in th e final rule to clarify how a manufacturer will be able to use the AC17 to demonstrate the effectiveness of its different A/C systems and technologies while minimizing the number of tests that it will need to perform. In general, EPA believes t hat it is appropriate to limit the number of vehicles a manufacturer must test in any given model year to no more than one vehicle from each platform that generates credits (and CAFE improvement values) during each model year. EPA is also clarifying the definition of “platform” in addition to more clearly limiting testing to one test per platform per year, and

believes we have addressed the manufacturers’ concerns about unreasonable test burdens. Finally, in order to further minimize the number of test s that will be required for A/C efficiency credit purposes, instead of requiring replicate testing in all cases, EPA will allow a manufacturer to submit data from as few as one AC17 test for each instance in which testing is required.

3) Off

- cycle credi ts are continued, but with a simplified approval process for some of the relevant technologies (defined technologies qualify for the credits given adequate penetration of the manufacturer's fleet subject to a combined manufacturer fleet credit cap and with minimum penetration requirements for certain technologies ) starting with

MY 201 4 and altered eligibility criteria in other cases beginning in MY 2012

. T he

default off

- cycle credit requires running three 5

- cycle tests with and without the technology along with an engineering analysis to support the credit application; a n alternative demonstration methodology can be requested based on submission of supporting informat ion. The MY 2017

- 2025 final rule adds a list of defined technologies that are pre

- approved for credits starting with MY 201 4 , with

manufacturer fleet

- wide caps on the amount of the credit. For the MY 2012

– 2016 period, there are changes in the criteria an d possible additional or alternative tests. Applying for the credit is presumably less burdensome from a compliance standpoint than not qualifying for the credit, for those who choose to qualify. Off

- cycle components generating credits are subject to all i n

- use requirements, including durability testing, defect reporting, warranty, and recall. A ssumption about the class of

manufacturers and number of tests that would fall under each variant are unwarranted at

this time

. A step

- by

- ste p review process for 201 2 on is spelled out to qualify and apply7

for these credits.

4) Various n ew incentive multipliers are added for electric vehicles (EVs), plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) and natural gas vehicles, for MY 2017 through 202 1 that would allow each of these vehicles to “count” as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer’s compliance calculation ( The 0 gram per mile compliance value incentive from the prior rule is continued , but without the production cap for MY2017

– 2021

. F or MY 2022 through 2025, EPA is finalizing that the 0 grams per mile compliance incentive will apply up to a per

- company cumulative production cap threshold for those model years. ) Since the credit in all these cases is based on production figures that are rep orted anyway as part of the end

- of

- year report, the small paperwork burden addressed in the prior ICR is

small

. However, new data would need to be submitted for production over a manufacturer's

cap, if any, in order to calculate the GHG compliance leve l taking into account upstream

emissions. This ICR considers the production caps for the period up to 2016 unlikely to be

exceeded.

5) Incentive for Game Changing Technologies : a new CO2 credit in the GHG program for manufacturers that employ significant quantities of hybridization on full size pickup trucks, by including a per

- vehicle CO2 credit available for mild and strong hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). The credit require s a showing of market penetration. EPA is also finalizing a performance

- based incentive CO 2 emissions credit for full size pickup trucks that achieve a significant CO 2 reduction through technologies other than hybrid systems. Both begin with

MY 2017

. The m ain paperwork burden associated with these provisions is showing that the vehicles in question qualify, which is a simple matter of definition, and showing that the market penetration requirements ( a minimum percentage of a manufacturer’s full

- size pickup

trucks ) have been met, which is a matter of sales records, which are already reported , or that performance fits the criteria based on testing that is required anyway

.

6) N2O and CH4 Flexibility: A new provision allows CO2 credits to be used to satisfy the NO2 and CH4 emissions caps contained in the prior rule for those manufacturers choosing to comply using the CO 2 - equivalent standard option, which allows manufacturers to fold all 2

- cycle weighted N 2 O and CH 4 emissions, on a CO 2 - equivalent basis, along with CO 2 into their

CO 2 emissions fleet average compliance level

. This has no effect on the testing cost.

Additional details on the coverage of this ICR are given in Section 4 (b), below.

Section 2: Need For A nd Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority For T he Collection

Under Title II of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521 et seq.), EPA is charged with issuing certificates of conformity for motor vehicle designs that comply with applicable emission standards set under section 202(a)(1) of the Act, such as those for CO2, N2O, and CH 4 in the final regulation

. (This authority was clarified in the Supreme Court’s decision State of Massachusetts v. EPA , 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007 )). Section 202(a)(1) states that ‘‘the Administrator shall by regulat ion prescribe (and from time8

to time revise) [...] standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or

classes of new motor vehicles [...] , which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticip ated to endanger public health or welfare.’’ T he

Administrator has found that the elevated concentrations o f a group of six GHG s in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, and t hat

emissions of GHG s from new moto r vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to this air pollution

A manufacturer must have a certificate before vehicles may be legally

introduced into commerce. To i nsure compliance with the Act , EPA reviews product

information and manufacturer test results; EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm

manufacturer results. Information is also shared with other agencies: the Internal Revenue Service for “gas guzzler” taxes and NHTSA for CAFE and GHG requirements

. Other elements of the legal and regu latory background relating to the need and authority for the final rule are discussed in the preamble to the rule.

Under Section 206(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7525) “... The Administrator shall test ... any new motor vehicle ... submitted by a manufacturer ... If such vehicle ... conforms ... the Administrator shall issue a certificate of conformity.”

While EPA has delegated a substantial portion of the process of calculating and reporting emissions and fuel economy results to the manufacturers, the test results upon which labels are based are subject to EPA confirmatory testing. Such confirmation testing makes sure that results from different manufacturers can be accurately used for comparison.

The regulations dealing with LDV and LDT emission control can be found in 40

CFR Parts 85 and 86 . The regulations dealing with reporting fuel economy information

are i n 40 CFR Part 600. The regulations are not attached to this statement due to their length and technical nature.

Because of its specialized nature and the fact that product plans and emission performance information must be submitted to EPA prior to the start of production, this information is not available from any source other than the manufacturer.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The information collection under the rule will be used to determine whether the new GHG requirements have been c omplied with by means of the certification and in

use testing programs.

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3 (a) Nonduplication

T he compliance process for both manufacturers and EPA builds on existing practice wherever possible, and manufacturers can use a single data set to satisfy both9

GHG and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) testing and reporting requirements. The EPA and NHTSA programs replicate the compliance protocols

established under the prior rule . The certification, testing, reporting, and associated compliance activities track current practices and are thus familiar to manufacturers. As

is the case under the 2012

- 2016 program, EPA and NHTSA have designed a coordinated complia nce approach for 2017

- 2025 such that the compliance mechanisms

for both GHG and CAFE standards are consistent and non

- duplicative. The information collection, reporting, and storage provisions of the rule rely on EPA’s existing

certification and in

- use pro grams and on EPA’s fuel economy reporting system that is used by NHTSA in developing and administering CAFE standards. As discussed at length in the preamble to the final rule , this is a joint rulemaking by NHTSA and EPA, a format which has a maximum degr ee of coordination between the two similar programs addressing GHGs and fuel economy. NHTSA is regulating fuel economy, whereas EPA is regulating GHG emissions. The statutory mandates for the two agencies are different, and this results in a certain degre e of difference in two programs that nonetheless share a great deal in approach and structure.

3(b) Public Notice Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

EPA solicited public comment by means of the Federal Register Notice of the proposed rule, published on Dec ember 1 , 20 11

, 7 6 Federal Register 74854 ; a copy can also

be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm . The draft ICR was placed in

the docket.

3 (c) Consultations

The regulations, including the cost analysis that is reflected in this IC R, were developed based on experience with similar regulations developed in the past in close consultation with the affected industry. As for the MY 2012

- 2016 rulemaking, collaboration with California Air Resources Board (CARB) and with industry and other stakeholders has been a key element in developi ng the agencies’ rules. Throughout the development of this rule, EPA met extensively with individual manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, industrial trade associations, industry professional organizations

, and

other stakeholders. Their comments have been reflected in the burden estimates

discussed below.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

As required by the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7525(a)), emission and fuel economy information is submitted on a yearly basis coinciding with the manufacturer’s “model year.” EPA allows applicants to define their own “model year”, thus granting some flexibility in this regard. Major product changes typically occur at the start of a model

year. For these reasons, a collection frequency longer than a model year is not possible. However, when a vehicle design is “carried over” to a subsequent model year, the

amo unt of new information required is substantially reduced. Some information is also to be submitted during the model year, including model

- level GHG testing results,10

analogous to model

- level fuel economy results, which are necessary because

certification d ata are collected on a test group basis which does not allow for fleet total GHG emissions and fuel economy calculations on a model level basis. Likewise, existing regulations require an end

- of

- year report, with final production numbers, and the new requir ements would be conformed to this existing requirement as well. In

- use testing is currently required at low

- and high

- mileage intervals after a model year vehicle has entered commerce, and the final rule's provisions bearing on in

- use testing

conform to th e current program.

3(e) General Guidelines

Manufacturers are required to keep some records for periods longer than three

years

. This requirement stems from the statutory requirement that manufacturers warrant some items for periods longer than 3 years.

This information collection activity complies with the remaining guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5. The rule makes no changes in the reporting and recordkeeping provisions that impact any of the guidelines for information collections as approved in the exist ing approved collection.

3(f) Confidentiality

Information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific vehicle to which it pertains is available for purchase. After vehicles are available, most

information associated with the m anufacturer’s application is available to the public. Under section 208 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7542(c)) all information, other than trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available. Proprietary information is granted confidentiality in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA’s Office of

General Counsel.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No sensitive questions are asked in this information collection. This collec tion complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A

- 108.

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/ NA SIC Codes

The respondents are potentially involved in the industries shown in the following

table:11

Category NAICS Codes A Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities

Industry 336111

336112 Motor vehicle manufacturers.

Industry 335312

336312

336399

811198 Alternative fuel vehicle converters

Industry 811111

811112

811198

423110 Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle

Components B

A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

B We are currently unaware of any independent commercial importers (ICIs); as the rule

would defer small businesses these ICIs would not be regulated at this time.

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

The information and reporting burden associated with this rule occurs within the context of EPA’s motor vehicle certification program and the manufacturers’ in

- use testing program (IUVP)

. Current regulations require manufacturers to submit emissions information to EPA in conjunction with th e s e two program s (I nformation C ollection s)

. Manufacturers must submit an application for emission certification prior to production. The application de scribes the major aspects of the proposed product line, technical details of the emission control systems, and the results of tests to indicate compliance

with the emissions and GHG limitations. The application and supporting test results are

reviewed and , if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued. Subsequently, low

and high

- mileage vehicles in use are tested for emissions by manufacturers and the results of those tests reported to EPA.

The data items in the GHG program we re summarized in the prior ICR. The basic outline of the model year submission scheme is restated here for convenience ; for additional details on the prior rule, see the Supporting Statement for ICR 0783.58):

Before the beginning of each model year:

GHG compliance plan including projected use of credits provisions

.

At the time of certification:

CO 2 and CH 4 emissions test results for each test group being

certified.12 Engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches will be utilized at high altitude. N2O measurement results or compliance showing for each test

group.

During the model year, after certification:

CO 2 emissions test results for model types. (The models for which results are reported is considered to be coextensive with those already repor ted for CAFE fuel economy purposes.)

AC/CO 2 test for models representing percentages of the applicant’s production volume, starting in 2014.

After the model year:

End of model year GHG emissions report for CO 2 , including t he final fleet average standard, all values required to calculate the fleet average standard, the actual fleet average CO 2 that was achieved, all values required to calculate the actual fleet average, the number of credits generated or debits incurred, all the values required to calculate the credits or debits, and the resulting balance of credits or debits. Report of credit transactions.

During in

- use testing:

Results of the highway fuel economy test (HFET) along with the currently

- reported FTP results for each tested vehicle.

The current rule makes the following addition s to the data items that are reflected in this ICR :

Small Volume Manufacturers (less than 5,000 units per year sold in the U.S.) must submit a request for alternative CO2 standards or else comply w ith the regular

standards. The ICR assumes that eligible SVMs will request alternative standards. The

data items are as follows:

EPA require s that SVMs seeking an alternative standard provide the following information as part of their petition for SVM st andards:

Vehicle Model and Fleet Information

• MYs that the application covers

– up to 5 MYs. Sufficient information must be
provided to establish alternative standards for each year

• Vehicle models and sales projections by model for each MY

• Description of models (vehicle type, mass, power, footprint, expected pricing)13

• Description of powertrain

• Production cycle for each model including new vehicle model introductions

• Vehicle footprint based targets and projected fleet average standard under primary

program by model year

Technology Evaluation

• CO 2 reduction technologies employed or expected to be on the vehicle model (s) for
the applicable model years, including effectiveness and cost information

– Including A/C and potential off

- cycle technologies

• Evaluation of vehicles produced by other manufacturers similar to those produced by
the petitioning SVM and certified in MYs 2012

- 2013 (or latest two MYs for later
applications) for each vehicle model including CO 2 results and any A/C credits
generated by the models

– Similar vehicles must be selected based on vehicle type, horsepower, mass,

power

- to

- weight, vehicle footprint, vehicle price range

, and other relevant
factors as explained by the SVM

• Discussion of CO 2 reducing technologies employed on vehicles o ffered by the
manufacturer outside of the U.S. market but not in the U.S., including why those
vehicles/technologies are not being introduced in the U.S. market as a way of
reducing overall fleet CO 2 levels

• Evaluation of technologies projected by EPA as te chnologies likely to be used to

meet the 2012

- 2016 and 2017

- 2025 standards that are not projected to be fully

utilized by the petitioning manufacturer and explanation of reasons for not using the
technologies , including relevant cost information

SVM Projec ted Standards

• The most stringent CO 2 level estimated by the SVM to be feasible and appropriate by
model and MY and the technological basis for the estimate

• For each MY, projection of the lowest fleet average CO 2 production mix of vehicle

models and discuss ion demonstrating that these projections are reasonable

• A copy of a ny applications submitted to NHTSA for MY 2012 and later alternative

standards

Eligibility U.S. sales for previous three model years and projections for production volumes over
the time per iod covered by the application14

Complete information on ownership structure in cases where SVM has ties to other

manufacturers with U.S. vehicle sales

New SVMs intending to enter the market in 2017

– 2025 have additional reporting requirements:

evidence th at the company intends to enter the U.S. market within the time frame of

the MY2017

- 2025 SVM standards. Such evidence would include documentation of
work underway to establish a dealer network, appropriate financing and marketing
plans, and evidence the c ompany is working to meet other federal vehicle
requirements such as other EPA emissions standards and NHTSA vehicle safety

standards.

In addition, EPA requires that manufacturers seeking an operational independence determination to become eligible for SVM alternative standards provide information demonstrating that they meet the following criteria:

1. No financial or other support of economic value was provided by related
manufacturers for purposes of design, parts procurement, R&D and production

faciliti es and operation. Any other transactions with related manufacturers must be
conducted under normal commercial arrangements like those conducted with other
parties. Any such transactions shall be at competitive pricing rates to the

manufacturer.

2. The appl icant maintains separate and independent research and development, testing,
and manufacturing/production facilities.

3. The applicant does not use any vehicle engines, powertrains, or platforms developed
or produced by related manufacturers.

4. Patents are not h eld jointly with related manufacturers.

5. The applicant maintains separate business administration, legal, purchasing, sales,
and marketing departments as well as autonomous decision making on commercial

matters.

6. Overlap of Board of Directors is limited to 25 percent with no sharing of top
operational management, including president, chief executive officer (CEO), chief
financial officer (CFO), and chief operating officer (COO), and provided that no
individual overlapping director or combination of overlapp ing directors exercises
exclusive management control over either or both companies.

7. Parts or components supply agreements between related companies must be
established through open market process and to the extent that manufacturer sells15

parts/components t o non

- related auto manufacturers, it does so through the open
market at competitive pricing.

M anufacturer applying for operational independence must provide an attest engagement from an independent auditor verifying the accuracy of the information provided in the application.

A fter EPA approval, the manufacturer will be required to report within 60 days any material changes to the information provided in the application for the operational independence

determination

.

(ii) Respondent Activities

Whi le there is no “typical” respondent, all manufacturers must describe their product and supply test data and other information to verify compliance, including the test data and reports added by this rule . After certification, additional fuel economy

tests a re conducted and the results reported to EPA for base engines within the test group. After the end of the model year a calculated fleet average greenhouse gas emissions will be calculated and reported and credits, debits, and trades described. As now, high mileage and low mileage in

- use vehicles are procured by manufacturers and tested for emissions, including the testing added by the prior rule

. EPA also conduct s a limited number of “confirmatory tests” to monitor manufacturer results , and this will

contin ue as before with inclusion of testing for GHGs

. This requires test vehicles to be shipped to EPA’s laboratory. Manufacturers must also retain records. These tasks are repeated for each model year, although typically previous data and information can be “carried over” when no significant changes have occurred. If, during the course of a model year a product change is made (a “running change”), EPA must be notified. Under some circumstances additional test data may be required. Manufacturer activities

al so include the post

- certification, end of model year, and IUVP actions discussed in Section 4(b)(i).

Sectio n 5: The Information Collected

— Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and

I nformation Management

5(a) Agency Activities

The test data used by EPA to determine compliance with GHGs and other emissions and fuel economy standards are derived from vehicle testing done by vehicle

manufacturers who report their own test data to EPA , and at EPA's National Vehicle

and Fuel Emissions Labora tory in Ann Arbor, Michigan

. Each year, EPA provides fuel economy data to the Department of Energy (DOE), NHTSA, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) so that they can administer their fuel economy

- related programs. DOE publishes the annual fuel economy label valu es in the annual Fuel Economy Guide and on the fuel economy web site at http://www.fueleconomy.gov. NHTSA receives the manufacturers' fleet average fuel economy from EPA, and determines if manufacturers are complying with the CAFE standards. EPA provides IRS with the fuel economy data

for vehicles that may be subject to the Gas Guzzler tax penalty. The IRS is responsible16

for collecting those taxes from manufacturers.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA currently makes extensive use of computers in collecting information from

vehicle manufacturers. Essentially all routine information (test results and vehicle descriptions in applications for certification and subsequ ent model tests, IUVP data,

end

- of

- year reports, credits and ABT reports, deterioration determinations, etc. ) is electronically transmitted directly from the manufacturers through the V erify system. Remaining information, including diagrams and narrative descriptions of vehicles , is submitted on optical disc . The rule makes no changes in this reporting system, only changing the format and content of some of the information reported within it.

All information received by EPA is subject to review. D ata submitted electronically are automatically screened; test results that are close to emission and fuel

economy standards are reviewed in more detail. Narrative descriptions of the proposed product line are checked to verify that the appropriate vehicles have been tested. (The

emissio n and fuel economy programs rely on a combination of “worst case” and representative data to accomplish their goals.) Except for projected sales and a limited

amount of proprietary product information , all information is available to the public as

soon as the vehicle is offered for sale. Emission and fuel economy data are available on the internet; other information is available upon request under the Freedom of

Information Act.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The rule continues to exempt small businesse s from the GHG standards, for any company that meets the SBA’s definition of a small business, as in the prior rule. These are

referred to as "small entities". The rule adds the flexibility to opt into the standards applicable to regular manufacturers, and EPA expects paperwork costs for those companies opting in would be similar to other respondents, but this is a voluntary option that is not costed in this

ICR.

5(d) Standards for Small Volume Manufacturers

Under the prior rule, small volume manufacture rs (SVMs) with U.S. annual sales of less than 5,000 vehicles were also eligible for an exemption from the CO 2 standards. The MY

2017

- 2025 rule brings these manufacturers into the CO2 program, but maintains flexibility with an opportunity to petition for alternative standards. For purposes of this ICR, the set of manufacturers meeting this condition (not a small business entity, but le ss than 5,000 vehicles sold in the US) is from a low estimate of four

, to a high estimate seven, including an

estimated on e to two manufacturers meeting the operational independence criteria . For these, the costs of paperwork and record keeping calculated for the prior rule apply unless they petition for alternative standards ; for purposes of this estimate we treat all SVMs as applying

for the alternative standards. Manufacturers with less than 5

, 000 total annual sales are exempt from IUVP, so the increased IUVP testing otherwise imposed by the prior rule do not17

apply to them

.

T he prior rule 's temporary leadtime allowance alternative standards (TLAAS) provisions which provided an allowance for a separate averaging fleet with a less stringent GHG standard as a phase

- in provision for model years 2012 to 2015 for manufacturers with fewer than 400,000 vehicles, and for model y ears 2012 to 2016 for manufacturers with annual sales of less than 50,000 vehicles

, is not being continued

. As in the prior ICR, t hese are treated as compliance burden costs rather than paperwork

burden costs

.

EPA has other previously existing special procedures that might apply to small

volume light

- duty vehicle and light

- duty truck manufacturers not otherwise excluded by

the final rule's small

- business exclusion. " Small

- volume manufactures " for purposes of

the se provisions are defined as those whose total sales are less than 15,000 units per

year (40 CFR 1836

- 01) . These special procedures allow the small

- volume manufacturer to submit a simplified application for certification with respect to durability demonst rations, and these manufacturers also have reduced requirements under the IUVP program. In addition, engine families with small numbers of vehicles are eligible for reduced certification fees. Finally, by the very nature of their size,

small volume manuf acturers typically have very limited product lines. This

characteristic both reduces the amount of information which must be submitted and also simplifies the process of selecting the correct test vehicle(s).

5(d) Collection Schedule

See the descriptio n in Part 4(b)(i). Information must be submitted for each “model year” that a manufacturer intends to build (or import) vehicles. For emissions

purposes, a “model year” is statutorily defined as the annual production period of a manufacturer, as decided b y the Administrator, that includes January 1 of that calendar year; or that calendar year if the manufacturer does not have an annual production period. During the model year, the results of such additional fuel economy and GHG

tests as the manufacturer conducts are also reported to EPA. After the end of the model year fleet

- wide GHG emissions are calculated and reported. If a product is unchanged between model years, much of the information can be “carried over.” The collection frequency and burden are determined to a large extent by the manufacturer’s marketing and product ion plans. However, as required by law, some submission is required for each model year’s production.

Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

The following estimates of changes in burden use baselines and methodologies developed in the process of continuing updates of the 0783 ICR series, including the last renewal (ICR 0783.54, OMB 2060

- 0104, approved August 31, 2009), the prior disaggregation of that ICR into five ICs, the cold hydrocarbon emissions standards rule (ICR 0783.52), the latest vehicle fuel

- economy labeling rule (ICR 0783. 60 ) , and the prior GHG rule (ICR 0783. 58 ) . The reasoning behind estimates of increased burden18

from the current baseline are given below and summarized in Section 6(f) based on provisions of the rule that are summarized in Section 1(b)

. Most of the burden is included in the underlying certification authorization baseline; the numbers below are only changes to the ba seline. "Respondent Burden" is taken to refer to hours, while "Respondent Costs" are taken to refer to non

- labor capital and O&M costs. Hours or costs are reported to the hour or dollar without intending to imply that the totals are significant to the last digit.

For both Respondent Burden and Respondent Costs, new and corrected estimates will be updated in subsequent ICRs , which should benefit from the most recent

information available about real testing and reporting costs associated with credit pathways chosen

, gathered through Verify queries based upon actual rather than projected certification applications

.

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

The respondent burden hours changes for the Light

- Duty Vehicle Emissions Information Collection reflect new labor hours associated with conducting tests and

with reporting. As discussed above, the AC17 air conditioning test alternative could

result in either an increase or a decrease in tes ting labor hours (and testing costs). Once

additional information is received

, as compliance cost decreases are translated into reporting cost increases or decreases using this alternative, further adjustments to the

baseline will likely be warranted. Test ing costs also contain a small addition to account

for the estimated three to five SVMs that will be required to conduct AC testing for

some fraction of its vehicle families , assuming the SVMs would seek to generate A/C

credits

. These two corrections decre ase the low estimate by 128 and increase the high baseline, (which is used for the authorization request) by 618 hours.

The reporting (paperwork) and recordkeeping costs have been revised to reflect

the estimated number of manu facturers reporting GHG r esults to EPA contained in the

rule

. A line item has been added to account for small volume manufacturers, which are

assumed to submit applications for alternative standards the yearly burden of which in paperwork burdens is taken to subsume the above cate gories (initial total fleet reporting, and credits that are separately counted for other manufacturers) . The yearly

cost of doing so is scaled to account for the provision that the alternative standards can last up to five years, but may be less than that. We used three years as an approximation. The increment over their current burden is estimated at 467 hours per

year. Since every manufacturer will be required to su bmit an end

- of

- year report on compliance with fleet average GHG requirements, the number used for this item is 33

.

All labor hours associated with startup costs for installing (updating) information technology systems to incorporate the new information to be reported

, and startup costs for familiarization with the new regulations, are associated with capital/startup costs, so they are included under that heading, following EPA guidance (EPA ICR Handbook, Rev. 11/05, p. A

- 31).19

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

(i) Estimat ing labor costs

Information technology specialists for analysis and coding and label redesign are priced at $100 per hour. Labor costs for testing follow the testing labor cost assumptions of ICR 0783.47 and 0783.51 and average out to $55 per hour. Beca use this estimate underlies the entire certification program and not just this GHG portion, it will be adjusted for inflation

in the next renewal of the ICR 0783 series. For labor costs associated with reporting and recordkeeping, rates for engineering ma nagers (SOC 11

- 9 199 ), mechanical engineers (SOC

17

- 2141), and secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive; SOC 43

- 6014) are from the May 20 10 BLS National Industry

- Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates

for NAICS 336100

- Motor Vehicle M anufacturing ( http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm , accessed October 13 , 20 11 ). With a 160% overhead multiplier, these are $87.3 3 , $ 70. 37, and $31.6 8 , respectively.

(ii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance Costs

Operation and Maintenance costs include the non

- labor costs associated with conducting the new tests that are anticipated for model year 2011 and after. For the Emissions IC, the Idle Test is estimated to involve $210 to $420 per test (low and high

estima tes); in the prior ICR these were applied to the an estimate of the number of such tests the major manufacturers who choose to apply for the credit will need to do to represent their production volume in model year 2014 and after, for an industry total of $41,297 to $171,570 per year. After the initial year, there would presumably be a number of carry

- overs, so this is a conservative estimate (i.e., tending to be on the high side) for the years after model year 2012. As discussed above, EPA is finalizing a new AC17 test procedure to begin in MY 2017 as a replacement for the idle test. Prior to MY 2017 the AC17 test is an optional alternative to the idle test

. Th e AC17 test is more expensive from a testing and paperwork standpoint but only applies to "platfor ms", a smaller class than "test groups" so that, depending on the number of platforms using the

AC17 test could either increase or decrease the testing burden associated with the A/C credit. This is reflected in an increased range of the high and low estim ates for this paperwork cost item. This is applied to an estimate of 195 to 4 09 test groups (accounting for the addition of small volume manufacturers). Th e adjustment to account

for the switch from the idle test to the AC17 test increase s the high estimat e by $3 4,566 annually from the current baseline.

No changes are expected for the IUVP O&M costs.

(iii) Start

- up Capital Costs

“Startup” costs are one

- time costs to implement the new requirements in the rule that are applicable to model year 2012 vehicles being certified or in

- use tested by the respondent manufacturers. These startup burdens fall into three categories.

For the Emissions IC, f

irst are information technology costs involving familiarization20

with the new data reporting requirements and installation of reformatted management information systems to carry out and report the necessary data and calculations. All these

burdens are add

- ons to well established reporting requirements: manufacturers al ready

submit similar data to EPA. However, because manufacturers must not only program the reporting requirements, but also make management decisions about which of the compliance pathways to follow, this ICR adds a line item familiarization cost not sep arately counted in the prior ICR. These adjustments add $ 160,990 (depreciated) to the baseline for this category of startup costs.

Second are startup costs associated with N 2 O measurement. The prior ICR estimated a cost of $50,000 to $60,000 per analyze r, with one to five needed by 33 manufacturers. An updated cost estimate of $60,000 to $120,000 for each of the laser

- based measurement systems likely to be chosen by most manufacturers, applied to 33 manufacturers, accounts for

most of the increase in the high

- estimate baseline for this item ($9 82

, 405 , depreciated).

For the IUVP IC , some of the contracting laboratories that do IUVP testing may

also need to install N 2 O analyzers, and the adjustment in analyzer cost for the three to five facilities doing IUVP testing adds an estimated discounted and annualized capital cost of $85,426 (undepreciated) to the IUVP IC baseline. Testing facilities and procedures vary widely, and this is reflected in the order of magnitude range of high and low

items for N2O analyzer startup costs

.

Third are capital costs associate d with the new testing facility. Because manufacturers vary widely in their existing testing facilities, thei r excess capacities, their work shift arrangements and availabilities, the real estate cost and land availabilities for hypothetical expansions, and their contractual arrangements with other testing facilities, the Compliance Division has for many year now used the approximation that a facility capable of performing 750 FTP/HFET tests per year costs $4,000,000 and allocated this cost to each testing increment. This cost is then allocated over ten years and discounted at 7%. This methodology is considered co nservative, because it assumes no excess capacity. This estimate includes no change in the IUVP IC because there are no changes in the idle test cost. No change in facility costs is included in the IUVP program for small volume manufacturers

because small volume manufacturers are exempt from the IUVP program. Given the flexibility in the timing of AC testing (manufacturers will be able to conduct the testing in off peak times of year) and minimization of testing burden noted above for AC17 as discussed

abo ve, EPA believes manufacturers will be able to absorb the additional testing within their current facilities and EPA is not projecting that significant additional testing facilities will be needed to accommodate AC17 requirements beyond those projected pre viously for the AC

idle test. For the Emissions IC, the AC17 test is projected to increase the range of facility costs slightly to correspond to the increase in testing costs discussed above. This results in a small increase of $ 6,98 3 (depreciated) per ye ar in the high estimate.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

The emissions certification, fuel economy, and IUVP programs are administered by EPA’s Compliance Division. Approximately 47.5 full time employee equivalents21

are directly involved in the combined emission and fuel economy programs for light

duty vehicle , motorcycle, and other, secondary programs; their cost is approximately $5.9 million, including benefits but not overhead. EPA also participates in a program whereby the agency contracts with orga nization s that provide qualified persons to perform duties for the agency that are not performed by EPA employees. The cost associated with these persons who work directly on these programs is approximately $0.23 million, excluding overhead. Overhead pe rcentage for the entire division is approximately 16.9%, yielding an estimated total agency labor cost of $7.17 million.

The total non

- capital costs for the light

- duty and motorcycle programs, including direct and indirect labor, operations and maintenance , and overhead, is estimated as $11.14

million for FY 2007.

Implementation of the new GHG rule will be carried out by existing staff . The prior rule included startup costs for information systems and programming, including overhead of $4,000,000 (high e stimate). Annualized over ten years with 7% depreciation this cost burden came to $569,510. Ongoing agency burden added by the rule for maintaining and managing the database after startup was estimated at 12% of the startup costs, or $480,000, correspondi ng to approximately 6,281 hours. Combined

labor and annu al startup costs therefore tota led 6,281 hours (startup hours not annualized) and $1,049,510. Implementing the new GHG rule will undoubtedly require additional information systems startup costs and o ngoing O&M. As the Agency has not yet determined this level of effort, this ICR will use one

- third of the expenses of the prior rule as a placeholder: $1,333,333 startup capital costs with a yearly discounted value of $189,837, and $160,000 a year includin g overhead in ongoing maintenance and management of the database, equivalent to 2094 hours . This estimate includes costs associated with developing formats and collecting information within the Verify system for the new reporting elements summarized in 4( b)(i). Other ongoing database management, oversight, and certification activities are part of the fuel economy and emissions program Agency baseline. All EPA labor estimates are based on Office of Personnel Management Salary Table 2011

- GS (http://www.opm .gov/oca/11tables/pdf/gs_h.pdf , accessed 10/17/2011) with a 1.6 multiplier for overhead based on EPA’s latest fees cost allocation study (1.37 indirect program cost overhead times 1.16 overall EPA overhead). This estimate does not include Agency burdens incurred prior to the effective date of the rule, such as costs of developing the rule and preliminary consultations with manufacturers on database

issues.

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

As mentioned above, the respondent universe is a total of 3 3, including 4 to 7

smal l volume manufacturers that may petition for alternative standards . The rule also exempts police and emergency vehicles from the GHG rule. It is possible that this could change the number of test groups by one or two out of the 823 model level and 427

cert ification vehicle submissions assumed in the baseline. This is below the threshold of accuracy for the current estimate. The main benefit of the exemption is in reducing the sales figures for purposes of compliance with the standards.22

From the above dis cussion the following total burden and cost estimates can be calculated. (Due to the diverse nature of the motor vehicle industry, there is n o typical or average respondent, and this estimate makes many assumptions in an attempt to

accommodate this divers ity.)

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(i) Respondent Tally

RESPONDENTS 33

BURDEN HOURS 5, 667

OPERATING COST $ 1 63

, 918

CAPITALIZED COST $ 1,235,714

A more detailed summary can be seen in the tables below:

COST BURDEN

Min Max

Emissions IC

Startup: Capital one

- time IT/Paperwork/Familiarization/N 2 O (annualized 10yrs/7%) $ 62,721 $1,143,395

New Facilities: Ongoing Capital (annualized 10yrs/7%)

- $3,318 $6,893

Capital Subtotal $ 59,403 $1,150,288

New Testing (O&M) $

- 8

, 537 $3 4,566

New Reporting & Recordkeeping $ 36

, 336 $ 129

, 352

Total $ 87,202 $1, 314

, 206

IUVP IC

Startup: one

- time (10yrs/7%) $4,271 $85,426

New Facilities: Ongoing Capital, annualized 10 yrs/7%) $0 $0

Capital Subtotal $4,271 $85,42623

New Testing (O&M) $0 $0

New Reporting & Recordkeeping $0 $0

Total $4,271 $85,426

TOTAL CAPITAL $ 63,674 $1,235,714

TOTAL O&M $ 2 7, 800 $ 163

, 918

TOTAL LDV & IUVP $91

, 473 $ 1,3 99

, 632

HOURS BURDEN

LDV/LDT Emissions IC

Startup: Capital one

- time IT/Paperwork (annualized 10yrs/7%) 0 0

New Facilities: Ongoing Capital (annualized 10yrs/7%) 0 0

New Testing

- 1 42 576

New Reporting & Recordkeeping 2, 855 5,091

Total 2, 713 5, 667

IUVP IC

Startup: one

- time IT/Paperwork and O&M (annualized 10yrs/7%) 0 0

New Facilities: Ongoing Capital, annualized 10 yrs/7%) 0 0 New Testing (Labor & O&M) 0 0

New Reporting & Recordkeeping 0 0

Total 0 0

TOTAL LDV & IUVP 2, 713 5, 66724

(ii) Agency Tally

EMPLOYEES 26

STARTUP $ 349,837

LABOR HOURS 2,094

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

The burden change is from new capital and operations and maintenance costs and labor hours associated with implementing the new programs detailed in this final

ICR

. The increase in burden is due largely to an increase in the estimated (high estimate) cost of information system upgrades for industry. There is also a slight increase in the reporting burden associated with the end of model year GHG emissions report and the optional credit calculations that they may include.

6(g) Burden Statement

The table in Section 6(e) presents the total estimated burden for the final rule : approximately 5, 667 additional hours per year, with total annual capitalized and O&M costs

estimated at $1,3 99

, 632

. These estimates represent the high end of a high

- low range that was used for many of the cost elements. The annual costs and hours for information collection activities by a given manufacturer under any of the options in this rule depend upon

manufacturer

- specific variables, such as the number of different test groups

, th e number

of vehicles tested , the number of new N 2 O analyzers needed , the credit options chosen if any, and the cost of information system upgrades

. The estimated number of likely respondent manufacturers is 33

. The responses will be submitted annually and occasionally as a part of the existing EPA certification and IUVP programs

.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal

agency

. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providi ng information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; a nd 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 re gulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9

.

EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes this ICR, under

Docket ID number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0 799

. Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0799 , is available for public viewing at the Air And Radiation Docket in the EPA25

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is also (202) 566

- 1744. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at www.regulations.gov

.