            Supporting Statement
for
Information Collection Request
Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards
                                EPA ICR 0783.65
                         OMB Control Number 2060-0104

                              Compliance Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Part A SUBMISSION
Section 1: Identification Of The Information Collection
1(a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection

	Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission Standards; EPA ICR number 0783.65, OMB control number 2060-0104.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

	Introduction and Short Characterization

	EPA set more stringent vehicle emission standards and reduced sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a systems approach to addressing the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health.  The Tier 3 vehicle emission standards, which are the subject of this ICR, reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles.  The Tier 3 vehicle standards are harmonized with California's Low Emission Vehicle Program  -  LEVIII standards, creating a federal vehicle emissions program allowing automakers to sell the same vehicles in all fifty states.

	The burdens in this ICR have been allocated to the Certification (also called Emissions) and IUVP ICs (Information Collections, subaccounts of the overall ICR paperwork calculation).

	Some of the Tier 3 regulatory and reporting changes occurred as early as model year (MY) 2015 for those manufacturers that accumulated early credits.  The Tier 3 program started to phase-in beginning in MY 2017 and continues to 2025, similar to the current greenhouse gases rule (see Nonduplication, below).  Most of the costs associated with the Tier 3 rulemaking involve an assessment by industry of the available technology and the costs of using it to meet the new standards and as such are outside the scope of this ICR.

	ICRs normally have a three-year time horizon.  The burdens in this ICR are intended to cover the final paperwork costs for MY 2025 and later years.

	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.  The estimated costs (high estimate) are about $7.7 million annually in capital and operations and maintenance costs and labor hours of 73,567 annually on the regulated manufacturers compared to the baseline.

	Summary of the Tier3 Rule's Paperwork-Affecting Features

	This brief summary provides background on the pertinent paperwork burden-related provisions, including the meanings of numerous abbreviations, for the estimations provided in Part 6.

	The final Tier 3 regulations harmonized the federal vehicle emissions program with California's LEVIII requirements, as discussed below.  Paperwork burdens that manufacturers incur to comply with California's requirements are not considered new paperwork burdens required by the Tier 3 rule in the low-cost estimates.  The majority of the low-cost testing burdens estimated below are for the manufacturers producing "49 state vehicles" or "Federal-only vehicles".  Furthermore, a large majority of Federal-only vehicles are small-business alternative fuel converters and older model-year vehicles imported by small business Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs), both subject to various lowered certification requirements and entirely exempt from IUVP testing.  High-cost certification testing estimates assume that all certification test groups other than California-only certifications are included on the rationale that, but for these regulations, the manufacturers thereof would have the option of avoiding the new requirements by certifying as California-only vehicles.  This is a conservative estimate because it assumes a universal choice to forego sales in California.  The true cost of certification testing requirements therefore most likely falls within these two extremes.

	The Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to those in the prior Tier 2 program.  As with the Tier 2 program, the standards apply to (a) all light-duty vehicles (LDVs, or passenger cars), light-duty trucks (LDT1s, LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles (or MDPVs).  The Tier 3 rule also includes separate new standards for chassis-certified heavy-duty vehicles from 8,500 to 14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).

	Most of the harmonized emission standards are fleet average standards with no new required testing, so burdens are appropriately scored as pertaining to a manufacturer's entire fleet, rather than on a per-vehicle average; i.e., they are per-respondent burdens that primarily involve administrative costs, such as updating computer systems. (Minor complexity is added by the fact that the fleet average standard ceilings decline through MY 2025.)  However, the Tier 3 PM standard (described below) is a per-vehicle standard requiring testing both for certification and the in-use program (IUVP).  PM testing is necessary to produce the measurements that are reported to EPA, therefore, the costs of PM testing are included in the ICR burden, following previous practice in this ICR series.  There are also Tier 3 evaporative emissions standards which entail testing for in-use vehicles.  Those paperwork burdens are allocated only to the IUVP IC.

	The Tier 3 rule also includes credit and credit trading provisions and are considered to entail startup paperwork burdens similar to but smaller than those already contained in the baseline.

	For light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck, and medium-duty passenger vehicle tailpipe emissions, the Tier 3 rule includes fleet-average standards for the sum of NMOG (non-methane organic gases) and NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions (presented as NMOG+NOx).  NMOG and NOx emissions are measured on test procedures that represent a range of vehicle operation, including the Federal Test Procedure (or FTP, simulating typical driving), the Highway Fuel Economy Test (or HFET, simulating urban highway driving) and the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (or SFTP, a composite test simulating higher temperatures, higher speeds, and quicker accelerations).  The Tier 3 rule did not change the required tests, so no new testing costs are included.

	The Tier 3 FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOx standards are fleet-average standards, manufacturers calculate the average emissions of the vehicles they produce in each model year and compare that fleet average value to the applicable standard for that model year.  Manufacturers certify each of their vehicles to a per-vehicle "bin" standard and sales-weight these values to calculate their fleet-average NMOG+NOx emissions value for each model year.  The standards for light-duty vehicles began in MY 2017.  (For vehicles at or over 6,000 lbs GVWR, the standards began in MY 2018).  These Tier 3 fleet-average standards decline from MY 2017 through MY 2025.  The Tier3 FTP NMOG+NOx program includes two separate sets of declining fleet-average standards, with LDVs and LDT1s in one group and heavier LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s) and MDPVs in a second group which both converge on a single standard.  Similarly, the Tier 3 NMOG+NOx standard measured over the SFTP is a fleet-average standard.  For the Tier 3 SFTP NMOG + NOx fleet-average standard, the same declining fleet-average standard applies to both lighter (LDV and LDT1) and heavier vehicles.

	Manufacturers earn credits for fleet average NMOG+NOx values below the applicable standard in any model year.  Previously banked credits or credits obtained from other manufacturers may be used, or credits can be transferred to other manufacturers.  Unused credits expire after 5 model years.  Manufacturers are also allowed to carry deficits in their credit balance for up to 3 model years.

	Separate Tier 3 PM standards have been promulgated for the FTP and US06 cycles (US06 is a component of the SFTP).  The Tier 3 PM standards apply to each vehicle separately (i.e., not as a fleet average).  In contrast to the declining NMOG+NOx fleet-average standard, the final PM standard on the FTP for certification testing is the same for all vehicles and for all model years.  For vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR, the FTP PM standard began in MY 2018.  The PM standard is phased-in based on a sales percentage of the manufacturers' vehicle models through MY 2022.  The US06 PM standard phase-in is also sales volume based and has the same phase-in schedule as the FTP PM standard.  The Tier 3 PM standards paperwork burdens are allocated to the Certification IC.

	The Tier 3 program includes a separate, less stringent in-use FTP and US06 PM standard for the testing of in-use vehicles which applies during the PM standard phase-in period only.  In MY 2022 and after, the FTP PM in-use standard is the same as the certification FTP PM standard.  In MY 2023 and after, the US06 PM in-use standard is the same as the certification US06 PM standard. The paperwork burdens of this program are allocated to the IUVP IC.

	For complete heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs, defined as being between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR) the Tier 3 rule added new exhaust emissions standards.  Vehicles in this GVWR range are typically full-size pickup trucks and work vans, Class 2b vehicles are rated at 8,501 to 10,000 lb GVWR and Class 3 vehicles are rated at 10,001 to 14,000 lb GVWR.  "Complete" heavy-duty vehicles are covered by the Light-Duty ICR because they are "complete" vehicles that are chassis certified on a dynamometer like light-duty trucks and vehicles.

	The Tier 3 rule for HDVs parallels that for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments in standards levels, emissions test requirements, and implementation schedules.  The Tier 3 rule for HDVs includes a combined NMOG+NOx declining fleet average standard, new PM standards phasing in on a separate schedule, adoption of a 10 percent ethanol by volume (E10) certification test fuel for gasoline-fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to 150,000 miles or 15 years (whichever occurs first), and a requirement to meet SFTP standards.  (An alternative phase-in schedule based on sales volume for FTP standards and "indexed" phase-in for PM are also available.)  The SFTP testing for complete HDVs was a new requirement in the Tier 3 rule which results in a new testing cost burden, because these test results are necessary for reporting required by EPA.

	HDV SFTP testing includes a variety of test options for HDVs. The LDV SFTP is a "composite cycle" which combines test results from the FTP, US06 and SC03 cycles, the latter two being "supplemental" driving tests designed to capture emissions under conditions not fully accounted for by the FTP: aggressive driving and high speeds and air conditioning use.  The Tier 3 rule had different options for Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs.  For Class 2b vehicles with power to weight ratios at or below 0.024 hp/lb, manufacturers may replace the full US06 component of the composite SFTP emissions with the test results from only the second of the three emissions sampling periods in the US06 test, generally referred to as the "highway" portion of the US06.  For Class 3 vehicles, the LA-92 cycle is used instead of the US06 component for calculating the composite SFTP.  Both composite SFTP cycles are fully consistent with the MDV LEV III program and include standards for CO and PM exhaust emissions as well.  HDV manufacturers have the option to substitute the FTP emissions results, which are expected to be higher (more stringent) in general, for the SC03 emissions results for purposes of demonstrating compliance.  How many vehicles benefit from this option depends on the extent to which the higher FTP emissions levels reduce the margin needed to comply with the SFTP emission standards.

	Tier 3 fleet average NMOG+NOx FTP and SFTP standards are separate for Class 2b and Class 3.  The Tier 3 standards become more stringent in each successive model year from 2018 through 2022, with voluntary standards available in 2016 and 2017, all Tier 3 standards are set at levels that match those of California's LEV III program for these vehicle classes.  Manufacturers select the FTP and SFTP emission standard level, or bin level, for each vehicle.  Manufacturers calculate a separate fleet average for each HDV vehicle class.  The Manufacturer's fleet average is compared to the fleet standard at the conclusion of each model year.  Manufacturers earn credits for fleet average NMOG+NOx levels below the model year fleet standard.  Class 2b or Class 3 Tier 3 credits that were previously banked, obtained from other manufacturers, or transferred across the Class 2b/Class 3 categories can be used to demonstrate compliance with the fleet standard.  Unused credits expire after 5 model years.  Manufacturers are also allowed to carry deficits in their credit balance for up to 3 model years.

	The Tier 3 rule includes separate PM standards for Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs, respectively, phasing in as an increasing percentage of a manufacturer's production per year.  The same phase-in schedule applies for the light-duty sector, and a more flexible but equivalent alternative PM phase-in is also available.

	For evaporative emissions (non-tailpipe), for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, the Tier 3 standards require vehicles to have essentially zero fuel-vapor emissions in use.  The Tier 3 rule includes stringent evaporative emissions standards, new test procedures, and a new leak standard.  The Tier 3 standard includes phase-in flexibilities as well as credit and allowance programs.  The Tier 3 standards are harmonized with California's "zero evap" standards.  The Tier 3 evaporative emission standards phase-in over six model years.  Manufacturers generate allowances through early Tier 3 certifications and demonstrate compliance using averaging, banking and trading.

	The Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations include a bleed emission test and an evaporative emission system leak check.  Manufacturers are required to measure diurnal emissions over the 2-day diurnal test procedure from just the fuel tank and the evaporative emission canister at certification to ensure vehicles maintain zero fuel vapor emissions over their full useful life beginning in MY 2018.  The leak test requirement applies at certification and during In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) testing.  To streamline IUVP testing, manufacturers may use either the EPA leak test procedure or the output of the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) systems 0.020 inch leak detection and monitoring diagnostic.

	There are a number of alternative Tier 3 phase-in provisions (alternative phase-in of the FTP NMOG+NOx standard, percent-of-sales phase-in for the PM standard, alternative phase-in of the FTP PM standard available for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, alternative phase-in of the SFTP NMOG+NOx standard also available for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, etc.), special credit provisions (DOR  -  Direct Ozone Reduction  -  credit, credit for extension of the emission control system warranty), and regulatory fixes (updating the fuel economy label, for example) that do not alter the cost estimates generated for the major elements identified above but which add to the estimate for the startup costs and labor for understanding and implementing the new program for manufacturers.

      Lastly, as a result of the change in Tier 3 certification test fuel from 9 RVP E0 to 9 RVP E10, EPA is assessing the need to make test procedure adjustments related to fuel economy testing such that the change in the test fuel specification does not impact CAFE stringency.  EPA recognized that this action was needed in the Tier 3 Final Rule but deferred proposing a specific adjustment or set of adjustments because the data needed to determine the value(s) for the adjustments were not available.  Prior to EPA determining the specific test procedure adjustment, any LEV III or early Tier 3 vehicles using E10 test fuel for exhaust emission certifications will have to be tested for fuel economy values (FTP and HFET only) on E0.  EPA studied the expected certification rates for these vehicles to LEV III or Tier 3 standards and estimates that there will an average of about 35 additional tests per year for the industry with an hour burden of about 30 hours per test.  Thus, over the three-year period the added hour burden is 1,050 hours and the sum of the cost of testing and the hour burden is $402,150.

Section 2: Need For And Use of the Collection

2(a) Need/Authority For The Collection

	Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act provides EPA with general authority to prescribe vehicle standards, subject to any specific limitations elsewhere in the Act.  EPA is also setting standards for larger light-duty trucks and MDPVs under the general authority of section 202(a)(1) and under section 202(a)(3), which requires that standards applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons, NOX, CO and PM from heavy-duty vehicles reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction available for the model year to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety.  In addition, section 202(k) provides EPA with authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons from all gasoline-fueled motor vehicles during: (1) operation, and (2) over 2 or more days of nonuse; under ozone-prone summertime conditions.  Regulations under section 202(k) shall take effect as expeditiously as possible and shall require the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable by means reasonably expected to be available for production during any model year to which the regulations apply, giving appropriate consideration to fuel volatility, and to cost, energy, and safety factors associated with the application of the appropriate technology.  Further, section 206 and in particular section 206(d) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures for testing whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with section 202 requirements.

	A manufacturer must have a certificate before vehicles may be legally introduced into commerce.  To insure compliance with the Act, EPA reviews product information and manufacturer test results; EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm manufacturer results.  Other elements of the legal and regulatory background relating to the need and authority for the rule are discussed in the preamble to the final rule.

	The regulations dealing with LDV and LDT emission control can be found in 40 CFR Parts 85 and 86. 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 Tier 3 requirements have been complied with by means of the certification and in-use testing programs.

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Nonduplication

	The Tier 3 vehicle standards harmonize with California's LEV III program, thus creating a federal vehicle emissions program that allows automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states.   During the development of the Tier 3 regulations EPA worked with individual vehicle manufacturers and their trade associations, who have emphasized the importance of a harmonized national program.

	Auto manufacturers stressed to EPA the importance of their being able to design and produce a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that would comply with requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III program, as well as greenhouse gas/Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements in the same timeframe.  Consistency among the federal and California programs means that special versions of vehicles with different emission control hardware and calibrations would not be necessary for different geographic areas.  This allows manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design, development, calibration, and manufacturing.  In addition, because both programs include fleet-average standards, consistency among the programs means that manufacturers do not need to separately monitor the numbers of different vehicle versions that are sold in different parts of the country.  Consistency among programs also eliminates the need to supply aftermarket parts for repair of multiple versions of a vehicle.

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

	EPA will solicit public comment by means of a Federal Register Notice.  The draft ICR and corresponding forms will also be placed in the docket.

3(c) Consultations

	The regulations, including the cost analysis that is reflected in this ICR, were developed based on experience with similar regulations developed in the past in close consultation with the affected industry.  Collaboration with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and with industry and other stakeholders has been a key element in developing the agencies' rules.  Throughout the development of the Tier 3 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.  As we implement the program, EPA continues to work regularly with impacted stakeholders to further enhance and streamline the reporting processes to reduce burden.

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 amount of new information required is substantially reduced.  Some information is also to be submitted during the model year, as with model-level GHG testing results, analogous to model-level fuel economy results, which are necessary because certification data are collected on a test group basis which does not allow for fleet total 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 requirements 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 the 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 existing 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 manufacturer'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 collection complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A-108.

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested

4(a) Respondents/NASIC Codes

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

Category
                                 NAICS[a] Code
                                  SIC[b] Code
Examples of Potentially Affected Entities
Industry
336111,
336112
3711
Light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck manufacturers
Industry
811111, 811112, 811198
7538, 7533, 7534
Independent commercial importers
Industry
335312,
336312,
336322,
336399,
811198
3621, 3714, 3519, 3599, 7534
Alternative fuel converters
Industry
333618,
336120,
336211,
336312
3699, 3711, 3713, 3714
On-highway heavy-duty engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) manufacturers

[a] North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
[b] Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

	The information and reporting burden associated with this final 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 these two programs (Information Collections).  Manufacturers must submit an application for emission certification prior to production.  The application describes the major aspects of the final product line, technical details of the emission control systems, and the results of tests to indicate compliance with the emissions, greenhouse gases, and fuel economy 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 Tier 3 final rule are summarized below:

	Before the beginning of each model year:

 Tier 3 compliance plan including projected use of credits and alternative schedules.

	At the time of certification:

 NMOG+NOx, CO, formaldehyde and PM emissions test results for each test group being certified as specified in the rule.

      After the model year:

 End of model year emissions report for NMOG+NOx and PM, including the final fleet average, all values required to calculate the fleet average, the actual fleet average 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 FTP and SFTP exhaust emissions and evaporative emissions tests as specified in the regulations.

 (ii) Respondent Activities

	While 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 tests are performed and the results of these in-use tests are reported to EPA.  After the end of the model year fleet average Tier 3, fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions will be calculated and reported and credits, debits, and trades described.  High mileage and low mileage in-use vehicles are procured by manufacturers and tested for emissions in the IUVP program.  EPA also conducts a limited number of "confirmatory tests" to monitor manufacturer results, and this will continue as before.  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.

Section 5: The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

 Agency Activities

	The test data used by EPA to determine compliance with Tier 3 and other emissions and fuel economy standards are derived from vehicle testing done by vehicle manufacturers who report their own test data to EPA.  A significant portion of EPA's emission and fuel economy compliance activity is spent reviewing such applications to verify that the correct vehicle tests have been conducted and necessary information submitted.  Running change submissions must also be selectively reviewed for possible emissions impacts and manufacturers' evaluations thereof.  A part of this process involves determining if "carry over" of data from a previous model year or "carry-across" data from testing of similar vehicles and engines is appropriate or if new testing will be required.  EPA will also select a number of tests for confirmation at EPA's own laboratory.  EPA maintains the relevant reporting systems and records and analyzes relevant data for regulatory and oversight purposes.  EPA also prepares an annual report of emission test results.  Applications for certification of compliance with the Clean Air Act, along with associated reports, such as end-of-year annual sales-weighted fleet emissions data, are received and processed at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan where the "confirmatory" tests are also conducted.

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 subsequent model tests, IUVP data, end-of-year reports, credits and ABT reports, deterioration determinations, etc.) is electronically transmitted directly from the manufacturers through the EPA's Engines and Vehicles Compliance Information System (EV-CIS, formerly known as the Verify system).  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.  Data 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 final product line are checked to verify that the appropriate vehicles have been tested.  (The emission 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 preamble to the final Tier 3 rule discusses several new and extended existing provisions specifically designed to give flexibility and relief to small manufacturers (generally those who qualify as small businesses under the Small Business Administration definition): postponed compliance with the standards and other Tier 3 requirements otherwise applicable to earlier model years until model year 2022; extension of existing reduced testing requirements for "small manufacturers" in IUVP testing; allowing a statement of compliance in lieu of the new PM testing; extending availability to Tier 3 of assigned deterioration factors, used for determining the emissions levels necessary to insure compliance over the useful life of the vehicle; small business alternative-fuel converters may continue to comply with EPA's existing OBD requirements when the Tier 3 standards become effective rather than California's OBD requirements; availability of the substitution of FTP for new SC03 testing as part of the SFTP standard; and upon a "hardship" showing, additional time to meet the 100 percent phase-in requirements for exhaust and evaporative emissions, not limited to one year as in existing regulations.

5(d) Collection Schedule

	See the description 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 by 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 tests as the manufacturer conducts are also reported to EPA.  After the end of the model year fleet-wide sales-weighted Tier 3, fuel economy, and GHG emissions levels are calculated and reported. If a product is unchanged between model years, much of the information can be "carried over" in the certification application.  Collection frequency and burden are determined to a large extent by the manufacturer's marketing and production 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 previous renewals (ICR 0783.54, OMB 2060-0104, approved August 31, 2009 and ICR 0783.64, OMB 2060-0104, approved with changes March 24, 2017).  The reasoning behind estimates of increased burden from the prior 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 baseline. "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.

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

	As described in Part 1b, this ICR presents both high-cost and low-cost estimates. Burden hours estimates are treated likewise.  The analysis of labor hours fell into two categories: labor associated with new testing requirements, and labor for reporting and recordkeeping.  All labor associated with startup costs for familiarization with the new regulations and for installing (updating) information technology systems to incorporate the new information to be reported, are associated with the accounting category "capital/startup costs", so they are included under that heading without hour burdens.  These estimates are carried over from ICR 0783.54 as they are amortized over a ten-year period based on the estimated costs incurred at the outset of the Tier 3 program.

	The largest increase in labor hours is associated with PM testing.  We estimated the time per PM test to be from 20 to 25 hours.  Only about a quarter of an hour of this sum is during the actual test itself, since it is an add-on to the FTP or SFTP test previously conducted (thus the facility capital cost impact is de minimis); the rest is for the metrology and analytics involved in processing the sample.  For the high estimate, this is allocated at the ratio of 5.34:1 to the IUVP and Certification ICs respectively, based on the IUVP testing counts and estimated high durability group certification testing numbers.  This allocation between the two programs is mandated by OMB, even though in most cases the testing is conducted in the same facilities. The total for both is 51,555 hours.

	The per-test burden for US06 tests follows the assumptions of prior ICRs; the per hour burden of the "highway" US06 and LA 92 tests added for HDVs is estimated to be equivalent.  Only seventeen 2b and Class 3 HDVs were certified in model year 2012, and all of them were fifty-state vehicles. The bleed test is considered an IUVP burden and estimated at one hour per test for the estimated maximum of 5% that will not opt for the OBD alternative.  All these add 4,005 hours to the burden total.

	The estimate also includes a total of 21,502 hours for the paperwork burden of reporting and recordkeeping (distinct from the startup costs of computer programming and familiarization).  This is intended to account for the need at the beginning of the year to figure out before certification for a model year which bin to certify families to and how to meet the fleet-average standards for NMOG+NOx based on projected sales, as well as projections on how to meet the declining standards applicable to later years, and separately for lighter and heavier vehicles.  It also includes planning for credits, banking and trading.  And it includes planning for which models to phase in for the PM requirements.  During the year it includes submission of model vehicle emissions, and at the end of the year the reporting of compliance with fleet average Tier 3 requirements.  At all times there is a small increment in recordkeeping, although this is considered mostly to be achieved by the architecture of the computer systems that are addressed in capital costs.  These paperwork burdens are largely add-ons to existing reports in format: manufacturers already submit pre-model year plans for GHG compliance and MSAT; certification test results during the year; and end-of-year fleet-average GHG and fuel economy reports that incorporate sales figures for the model year.  Once the startup costs, primarily IT costs, are incurred, and management has determined the schedules of compliance, the reporting should be routine.

	In sum, these changes increase the baseline, under the low estimate, by 48,813 hours and increase the high estimate (which is used for the authorization request) by 73,567 hours.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
 Estimating labor costs

	Testing labor costs are based on the EPA average of $60.81 per hour from ICR 0783.64 adjusted from 2012 to 2018 using the CPI Inflation Calculator (https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl) to 2018 as $66.50 per hour.
Other non-testing labor costs are considered to be approximated by the motor vehicle manufacturing industry, NAICS 336100.  Rates for managers, mechanical engineers, and secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive) are from the May 2018 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#11.0000, accessed August 18, 2019).  With a 160% overhead multiplier, these are $87.02, $71.86, and $34.82, respectively.  Based on the latest bls data, the hourly rates for managers and mechanical engineers has decreased since the last ICR 0783.64 was completed.  Information technology specialists for analysis and coding and label redesign are priced at $100 per hour.

(ii) Estimating Operations and Maintenance Costs

	Operation and Maintenance costs fall into the same categories as the labor burden: the non-labor and non-capital costs associated with conducting the new tests that are anticipated under the final rule and the paperwork and record storage costs of reporting to EPA.

	For the Certification IC, the "Highway" US06 test and LA 92 tests are estimated to cost $1,860 per test and the new PM test is estimated to involve $250 to $400 per test (low and high estimates); In this ICR these are applied to the number of such tests estimated from test groups or durability groups in model year 2012.  For the LA92 and Highway US06 tests, the low number reflects the absence of any 49-state heavy duty test groups while the high estimate reflects eleven and six fifty-state test groups respectively.  The total is $0 to $131,160 per year.  The number of PM tests is based on two tests per durability group times 25% tested each year.  The low estimate of 20 tests reflects that only forty test groups were certified in MY 2012 that were not small businesses and were Federal-only.  The high estimate a total of 404 unique durability groups, Federal, California-only, or 50-state, with two tests for each group, a quarter tested each year, and allowance for those manufacturers who may be too small to benefit fully from the 25% rule.  The total for all new tests comes to $5,000 to $151,620 per year.

	A much larger number of vehicles are tested in the IUVP, 1,602 VINs from February 2012 through January 2013.  The estimate assumes two tests per vehicle but half the vehicles tested.  The resulting cost is $400,500 to $640,800. The IUVP bleed test was estimated at a maximum of 80 tests at $50 per test and based on contractor estimates.

	The best testing cost information frequently comes from contractors, who quote a single price that comprises labor, overhead, O&M, startup, facility costs, and profit, as well as varying amounts of the direct application and paperwork filing burdens.  It is difficult to allocate these global estimates to the accounting categories mandated by the ICR formalism.  This is compounded by the wide variety of different manufacturers covered, with, for example, differing facility construction needs, different availability of testing bays and contractor arrangements.  Combined ICR labor, O&M, and capital costs are consequently the more robust than these disaggregated estimates.

(iii)  Start-up Capital Costs

	"Startup" costs are one-time costs to implement the new requirements in the rule that are applicable to vehicles being certified or in-use tested by the respondent manufacturers. These startup burdens fall into three categories: Familiarization and information technology, testing, and facility costs.

	The estimates given below are after spreading the costs over ten years assuming an APR of 7% until the final value of the payment is zero, except for facility costs as explained below.

	For the Certification IC, the largest item is information technology costs involving familiarization with the new data reporting requirements and installation of reformatted management information systems to carry out and report the necessary data and calculations.  This estimate is based on EPA estimates of the cost of updating Verify, extended to the nine major marketing groups and to other manufacturers.  All these burdens are add-ons to well established reporting requirements: manufacturers already submit similar data to EPA. This estimate is highly imprecise because it is difficult for EPA to allocate information upgrade costs for an integrated system to a particular rulemaking.  There is also a minor line item for programming the extension of existing Average, Banking and Trading systems to accommodate Tier 3. The subtotal for information technology is $2,334,563.

	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. This item adds $106,497 to the baseline for this category of startup costs.

      The other major item in Certification IC startup costs is installation of equipment for PM testing.  For purposes of this ICR, we estimate 55 to 60 upgrades costing $250,000 to $500,000 each, resulting in a (discounted) yearly cost of $629,636.

      The total startup capital estimate for the Certification IC is consequently $3,070,696 per year.

	For the IUVP IC, startup capital costs are for bleed testing and PM testing. Startup costs for the bleed test are estimated at $2,500 per rig applied to 20 to 30 manufacturers for a minor cost of $10,678 per year.  The PM analysis is similar to that given for the Certification ICR, but because of the greater number of tests the figure is 5.34 times higher: $3,362,257.  The total for the IUVP IC is consequently $3,372,935. The total for non-facility startup costs for both ICs is consequently $6,443,631 per year for ten years.

	Finally, this ICR includes a separate accounting of "facility capital" costs.  Because manufacturers vary widely in their existing testing facilities, their 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 years 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 amortized to zero over ten years assuming an interest cost of 7%.  It is assumed that after ten years the investment has to be renewed, so that the "facility capital cost" item is continuous.  This methodology is considered conservative, because it assumes no excess capacity.  The only cost in this category is to accommodate the increase in testing facilities required to meet the new HDV testing in the Certification IC, and totals $12,064 per year over ten years.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

	The emissions certification and IUVP programs are administered by EPA's Compliance Division.  Testing for several categories of vehicles and engines is conducted by EPA's Testing and Advanced Technology Division (TATD) at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  Approximately 75 fulltime employee equivalents from both divisions are either directly involved in the combined emission and fuel economy programs or support the programs indirectly.  The EPA employee labor cost is approximately $10.5 million.  EPA's direct program costs include funding for contractors or equipment that directly supports the motor vehicle and emissions compliance programs.  Included are the funds used for supporting EPA's Verify database and support for EPA's in-use testing programs.  The direct program costs for the CD and TATD divisions is approximately $7.1 million.  Indirect costs of the certification and IUVP programs include cost for facilities, communications and employee training.  The indirect costs total is approximately $3.1 million.

	EPA's incurred costs incorporate the cost of equipment acquired for modernizing EPA's emissions laboratory, NVFEL, and buildings and facilities purchases and repairs.  As new standards and regulations are developed, the NVFEL is updated so that EPA can do the testing necessary to confirm manufacturers' certification test results.  Incurred costs are approximately $3.2 million.

	The overhead percentage for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality has historically been estimated to be 16.9%.  This may change in the future but will be used for the purposes of this ICR.  Using 16.9% as overhead, the overhead cost for the emissions certification and IUVP programs is about $4 million.  The approximate total for the certification and IUVP programs for FY 2011 is $28 million.

	Implementation of the new Tier 3 rule will be carried out by this existing staff. The 2017 greenhouse gases rule included startup costs for information systems and programming, including an estimate of $1,333,333 in startup capital costs with a yearly discounted value of $189,837, and $160,000 a year including overhead in ongoing maintenance and management of the database, for a total of $349,837 per year, with an associated 2,094 labor hours. The Agency has determined the level of effort for this rule is roughly comparable to the 2017 GHG rule, therefore this ICR will use the same estimate.  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 (see above).  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

	For a large portion of the burden and costs, that arising from new testing, the most accurate estimation method was to derive the burden on the industry as a whole from testing costs, rather than estimating a cost per respondent for the industry and applying it to various categories of a very diverse respondent universe.  This was done by counting the number of durability groups or vehicles that were tested in a twelve-month period, when this figure could provide a baseline for the estimate.  Thus, for the Certification IC, the high estimate for the burden of new SFTP testing for heavy-duty vehicles was estimated from the count of eleven 2b and six class 3 vehicles certified in model year 2012, and the per-test estimate applied to these numbers; for the low cost estimate the fact that all of these certificates were fifty-state was used.  For PM testing, there were 40 Federal-only certificates, and with two tests per group and 25% tested each year the low figure was 20 tests.  The high figure was from a count of 404 durability groups, two tests per group, and 25% tested each year, with an allowance for new HDV testing and for manufacturers potentially too small to benefit from the minimum in the final rule of two durability groups per manufacturer, for a high estimate of 300 tests.

	Similarly, for the IUVP IC, the figure of 1,602 IUVP vehicles (counted by unique VINs, Vehicle Identification Numbers) from February 2012, through January 2013, was used.  The final rule calls for two PM tests per vehicle but only half the vehicles are tested, for a total of 1,602 tests.  For the bleed test, the low estimate assumes no tests on the grounds that all manufacturers will opt for the OBD compliance option in the final rule, while the high estimate assumes that 5% will undergo the testing instead.

	A separate cost and burden estimate was made for the category of "reporting and recordkeeping" separate from the cost and burden of tests.  This included beginning of the year and end of the year reporting, as well as credits, banking, and trading, applied to 25 respondents, a small business item applied to 30 respondents, a submission item during the year applied to 336 certification applications, submission of new model-level emissions for 648 vehicles, and IUVP and Certification recordkeeping for 25 manufacturers.  For reporting purposes, we used 55 respondents and 648 responses, although from the foregoing it can be seen that with this diversity of reports and categories to which they apply, this is an approximation.

	From the above discussion the following total burden and cost estimates can be calculated.  Due to the diverse nature of the motor vehicle industry, there is no typical or average respondent, and this estimate makes many assumptions in an attempt to accommodate this diversity.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(i)  Respondent Tally

RESPONDENTS	55
BURDEN HOURS	73,567
OPERATING COST	     $1,206,870
CAPITALIZED COST	$6,455,695

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

                                  ICR 0783.65

                     TOTAL ANNUAL COST AND HOURS INCREASE

                                  COST BURDEN

                                      Min
                                      Max

Certification IC

Startup: Capital one-time IT/Paperwork/Familiarization/PM  (annualized 10yrs/7%)

                                  $2,664,581
                                  $3,070,696

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

                                      $0
                                   $12,064

Capital Subtotal

                                  $2,664,581
                                  $3,082,760

New Testing (O&M)

                                    $5,000
                                   $151,620

New Reporting & Recordkeeping

                                   $110,161
                                   $382,371

Total

                                  $2,779,742
                                  $3,616,751

IUVP IC

Startup: one-time: Bleed, PM testing (10yrs/7%)

                                  $1,548,153
                                  $3,372,935

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

                                      $0
                                      $0

Capital Subtotal

                                  $1,548,153
                                  $3,372,935

New Testing (O&M)

                                   $400,500
                                   $644,805

New Reporting & Recordkeeping

                                    $20,130
                                    $28,074

Total

                                  $1,968,783
                                  $4,045,814

TOTAL CAPITAL

                                  $4,212,734
                                  $6,455,695

TOTAL O&M

                                   $535,790
                                  $1,206,870

TOTAL LDV & IUVP

                                  $4,748,524
                                  $7,662,565

                                 HOURS BURDEN

LDV/LDT Certification IC

Startup: Capital one-time IT/Paperwork (annualized 10yrs/7%)

                                       0
                                       0

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

                                       0
                                       0

New Testing

                                      400
                                     8,010

New Reporting & Recordkeeping

                                    13,195
                                    18,224

Total

                                    13,595
                                    26,234

IUVP IC

Startup: one-time IT/Paperwork (annualized 10yrs/7%)

                                       0
                                       0

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

                                       0
                                       0

New Testing (Labor & O&M)

                                    32,040
                                    44,055

New Reporting & Recordkeeping

                                     3,178
                                     3,278

Total

                                    35,218
                                    47,333

TOTAL LDV & IUVP

                                    48,813
                                    73,567

(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 draft ICR. The increase in burden is due largely to new testing, an increase in the estimated (high estimate) cost of information system upgrades for industry, and familiarization. There is also a slight increase in the reporting burden associated with the new rule.  O&M Costs have decreased slightly from the previous ICR 0783.64 due to the slight decrease in managerial and engineering labor costs.

6(g) Burden Statement

	The table in Section 6(e) presents the total estimated burden for the final rule: approximately 73,567 additional hours per year, with total annual capitalized and O&M costs estimated at $7,690,934.  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, durability groups, or IUVP vehicles, the number of vehicles tested, the credit and other options chosen if any, and the cost of information system upgrades.  The estimated number of likely respondent manufacturers is 25 (but there is a minor item for an additional 30 small businesses).  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 providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA - HQ -  OAR-2019-0489, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA - HQ -  OAR-2019-0489 and OMB Control Number 2060-0104 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56832-56833]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23440]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65295; File No. SR-ISE-2011-55]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to a New Market Data Feed

September 8, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 31, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new market data offering called
the ISE Real-time Implied Volatilities and Greeks Feed. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.ise.com,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to adopt a new market
data offering called the ISE Real-time Implied Volatilities and Greeks
Feed (the ``ISE Feed''). The ISE Feed delivers real-time implied
volatilities and risk parameters (also referred to as ``Greeks'') for
American style equity, index and ETF options. This information is used
to track an option's price relative to changes in volatility and the
underlying security's price, which affects the theoretical price of an
option. The risk parameters are useful for delta neutral option
execution and monitoring an option's time premium decay. The ISE Feed
is also useful for investing and hedging strategies such as placing
orders based on changes in levels of volatility.
    The ISE Feed includes real-time implied volatilities for the bid,
ask and mid-point price as well as delta, gamma, vega, theta and rho
for each option series. The ISE Feed is a low latency feed that
produces data for the entire universe of U.S. options disseminated by
the Options Price Reporting Authority (OPRA). The Exchange believes the
ISE Feed provides valuable information that can help users make
informed investment decisions. The Exchange will make the ISE Feed
available to both members and non-members on a subscription basis later
this year and will submit a separate proposal to establish fees for
this market data offering.
 2. Basis
    ISE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\3\ in general and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with

respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data. ISE believes that this proposal is in keeping with those
principles by promoting increased transparency through the
dissemination of more useful proprietary data and also by clarifying
its availability to market participants.
    Additionally, ISE is making a voluntary decision to make this data
available. ISE is not required by the Act in the first instance to make
the data available, unlike the best bid and offer which must be made
available under the Act. ISE chooses to make the data available as
proposed in order to improve market quality, to attract order flow, and
to increase transparency.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
ISE Feed will help attract new users and new order flow to the
Exchange, thereby improving the Exchange's ability to compete in the
market for options order flow and executions.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \8\ thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ The Commission notes that Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-
regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days
prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such
shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an E-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2011-55 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-55. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments received will
be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-55 and should be submitted by
October 5, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-23440 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 65722-65723]
[DOCID:fr23no07-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12939-000]

FFP Project 52, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 14, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: P-12939-000.
    c. Date Filed: August 6, 2007.
    d. Applicant: FFP Project 52, LLC.
    e. Name of the Project: Gale Light Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Mississippi River
in Scott and Cape Girardeau Counties, Missouri and Alexander County,
Illinois. The project uses no dam or impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicants Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Project 52, LLC, 69
Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    i. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12939-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) 1700 proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 34-megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line,
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average
annual generation of 148.92-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local
utility.
    l. Location of Application: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    t. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22827 Filed 11-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67307-67309]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26863]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0582; FRL- 9902-65-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; Correcting Amendment.

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

SUMMARY: On June 18, 2013, EPA published a final rule approving certain
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for Tennessee's
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 Lead national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. Further, in the June 18, 2013, final rule, EPA
explained that the Agency was not taking action on the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) elements of Tennessee's infrastructure
SIP, and that action on those infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS would occur in a subsequent action. This action corrects a
typographical error in the regulatory language in paragraph (c) of
EPA's June 18, 2013, final rule related to the status of EPA's action
on these PSD elements for Tennessee's 2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure
SIP.

DATES: This action is effective November 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documentation used in the action being
corrected are available for inspection during normal business hours at
the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,
61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms.
Benjamin can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action corrects a typographical error
in the regulatory language that appears in paragraph (c) of Tennessee's
Conditional Approval section at 40 CFR 52.2219. This typographical
error stems from a June 18, 2013, final rule that approved in part, and
conditionally approved in part, portions of Tennessee's October 19,
2009, SIP revision addressing the infrastructure requirements for the
2008 Lead NAAQS. See 78 FR 36440. In that June 18, 2013, final
rulemaking, EPA described that no action was being taking on the PSD-
related requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and
110(a)(2)(J) of Tennessee's 2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure submission.
Inadvertently, however, EPA included a revision to the regulatory
language in

paragraph (c) of Tennessee's Conditional Approval section at 40 CFR
52.2219, which incorrectly stated that EPA was conditionally approving
the PSD-related elements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. At the time of the
June 18, 2013, final rulemaking, 40 CFR 52.2219(c) provided the
regulatory text for the existing conditional approval of the Tennessee
2008 Ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP for the PSD-related requirements at
sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J). See 78 FR
14450 (finalizing conditional approval of the PSD-related requirements
of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J) for
Tennessee's 2008 Ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP). As a result of the
inadvertent inclusion of regulatory text related to a conditional
approval for certain elements of Tennessee's 2008 Lead NAAQS
infrastructure SIP, the June 18, 2013, rulemaking removed the existing
conditional approval regulatory text provided at paragraph (c) in
reference to the 2008 Ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP and replaced it
with conditional approval of certain elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS
infrastructure SIP. This change was made in error.
    As noted above, EPA did not conditionally approve the PSD-related
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and
110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure SIP, nor did it
intend to remove the reference at 40 CFR 52.2219(c) to EPA's previous
conditional approval of the PSD-related elements for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS infrastructure SIP. Rather, EPA's inclusion of paragraph (c) in
the June 18, 2013 action was intended only to reference EPA's previous
conditional approval of the PSD-related elements in Tennessee's 2008 8-
Hour Ozone infrastructure SIP. Today's action corrects the reference in
paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 52.2219 to reflect the conditional approval of
the PSD-related portions of Tennessee's 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP instead of the 2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure SIP.
    EPA has determined that today's action falls under the ``good
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and
comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are
unnecessary because today's action to correct an inadvertent error
contained in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 52.2219 of the rulemaking and has
no substantive impact on EPA's June 18, 2013, rulemaking. In addition,
EPA can identify no particular reason why the public would be
interested in having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior
to this action being finalized, since this correction action does not
change the meaning of EPA's analysis or action to approve the addition
of paragraph (c) to 40 CFR 52.2219.
    EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3)
for this correction to become effective on the date of publication of
this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less
than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the Agency
for good cause found and published with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section
553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule,
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Rather, today's action merely corrects a typographical error in
paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 52.2219 by changing a reference to the 2008
Lead NAAQS back to reference the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, for the June
18, 2013, final rulemaking. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause
under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to become effective on
the date of publication of this action.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely corrects a typographical error in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR
52.2219 by changing a reference to the 2008 Lead NAAQS back to
reference the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, which EPA approved on June 18,
2013, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rule merely corrects an inadvertent error in paragraph (c)
of a prior rule, and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule merely corrects a typographical
error in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 52.2219 for a prior rulemaking by
changing a reference to the 2008 Lead NAAQS back to reference the 2008
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, which EPA approved on June 18, 2013, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant. In addition, this rule does not
involve technical standards, thus the requirements of section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule also does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.

This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 13, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: October 28, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2219 paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2219  Conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (c) Conditional Approval--Submittal from the State of Tennessee,
through the Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), dated
October 19, 2009, to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections
110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2008
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA is
conditionally approving TDEC's submittal with respect to the PSD
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
and 110(a)(2)(J), specifically related to the adoption of enforceable
provisions for PSD increments as detailed in TDEC's October 4, 2012,
commitment letter. Tennessee must submit to EPA by March 6, 2014, a SIP
revision adopting specific enforceable measures related to PSD
increments as described in the State's letter of commitment.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-26863 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P