SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR THE MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION FACTOR RECRUITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE PART A 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection ICR: Mobile Source Emission Factor Recruitment Questionnaire OMB Control Number  2060 0078 1( b) SHORT CHARACTERIZATION The EPA, Office of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division ( AMD) administers a nationwide effort to assemble data on emission levels of in use vehicles. AMD carries out this effort through the Emission Factor Program ( EFP) which tests inuse vehicles that are recruited from the general public voluntarily.

There are two methods used to recruit the general public for participation in the EFP: 1. Postal cards sent to a random selection of vehicle owners using State motor vehicle registration lists; and 2. A random selection of motor vehicle owners, who arrive at State Inspection Stations on an annual or biennial schedule. The vehicle owners complete and submit to EPA or EPA contractors a questionnaire ( 9 questions) on the vehicle's description ( make, model, mileage etc. see exhibit .

The purpose of the EFP is to collect average in use fleet emissions for three criteria pollutants: volatile organic compounds ( VOC), carbon monoxide ( CO), and oxides of nitrogen ( Nox). The information is used in the EPA MOBILE Highway Vehicle Emission Factor Model knows as MOBILE. MOBILE calculates the contribution of mobile source emissions to ambient air pollution. MOBILE is used by EPA, state and local air pollution agencies, the auto industry, and other parties interested in estimating mobile source emissions.

The data is collected by testing in use vehicles borrowed from the general public. The data are stored on the EFP database.

What will it cost: The information collection will involve 1300 number of respondents at 3,608,556 number of dollars.

2( a) NEED/ AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION The Agency requires States to submit certain air quality 2 reports to EPA. The information gathered in the EFP is required for the development of State Implementation Plans ( SIPs), Reasonable Further Progress ( RFP) reports, attainment status assessments for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS), etc.

The legislative basis for the Emission Factor Program is Section 103( a)( 1)( 2)( 3) of the Clean Air Act, which requires the Administrator to " conduct ... research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution", " cooperate with ... pollution control agencies and other appropriate public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations, and individuals in the conduct of such activities," and " conduct investigations and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of air pollution in cooperation with any air pollution control agency ..."

Section 103( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Administrator to " collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate means, the results of and other information, including appropriate recommendations by him in connection therewith, pertaining to such research and other activities."

2( b) PRACTICAL UTILITY/ USERS OF THE DATA The emission data collected through the mobile source Emission Factor Program provides the basis for the mathematical model MOBILE, a program for estimating both current and future vehicle emissions. The data are also published in a series of volumes known as AP 42, the compilation of both mobile source and stationary source emission factors.

Practical use of MOBILE is made by Federal, State, and local government agencies, State and private universities, and by commercial companies. Some of the users are: the EPA, state and local air pollution agencies, the auto industry, and other parties who have a need to estimate mobile source emissions.

MOBILE is an essential tool for a number of air pollution monitoring and control activities:

N National air quality policy makers need to assess current and future trends in the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These assessments cannot be made accurately without use of MOBILE. For this reason, the MOBILE model plays a key role in discussions of air quality 3 strategy within both the executive and legislative branches, and are relied on by outside organizations as well. Support to rulemakings required by the Amendments to the Clean Air Act is a typical critical use of MOBILE.

N EPA's national motor vehicle pollution control program relies on analyses provided by MOBILE. Each new or revised vehicle emission standard must be supported by air quality estimates based on the model. More generally, emission factors survey data is an important measure of the effectiveness of mobile source regulatory and enforcement strategies.

N State and local government bodies are responsible for the development of State Implementation Plans aimed at assuring that national ambient air quality goals are met. These plans must incorporate a balance of mobile source and stationary source compliance measures adequate to assure that air quality standards are attained and maintained into the future. For areas requiring more stringent measures to control motor vehicle related pollutants, use of MOBILE is essential for determining whether a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance ( I/ M) program or other motor vehicle control programs will be required.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication All of the available sources of this general category of information are known to EPA. No other agency conducts " as received" emission testing of privately owned motor vehicles, representing the national population of vehicles. The EPA Information Systems Inventory has been searched and no duplication of this activity was found.

Similar data are collected in the Recall program also conducted by the Office of Mobile Sources. In this program, data are collected only from properly maintained vehicles. Whereas, the Emission Factor Program requires test vehicles representing all maintenance conditions that actually occur in use.

The California Air Resources Board ( ARB) conducts an emission test program similar to the Emission Factor Program. EPA accepts the ARB data as representative of California vehicles. However, California and 50 state vehicles are subject to their own unique emission standards. Therefore, data collected from California and 50 state vehicles are not representative of vehicles in the other 49 states.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 4 The notice that this ICR is up for renewal and soliciting comment was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 1998 ( FR Vol. 63, No. 148 pg. 41251). A copy of the notice is attached to this document. There were no comments made in response to the public notice.

3( c) Consultations Opportunities for public comment on the EFP and MOBILE models are provided during public workshops. The workshops are held periodically to present results of EPA analysis, status of current test programs, and public discussion of MOBILE model issues. Generally, one workshop is held per year. As many as four workshops in a year may occur when major revisions to the model are being made. The participants in the workshops historically have been state and local officials of air pollution agencies and representatives of the oil and automotive industries.

Several years ago the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center ( SRC) conducted a study, under EPA contract, to identify areas where sampling methodology could be improved. This study, entitled Evaluation of the Survey Methods Used in the Emission Factors Program ( 1982), was performed because of the EPA's Information Management Branch recommendations to evaluate the program to improve overall response rates from previous programs. We now follow the study's guidance and recommendations, we have improved our overall response rate and keep a detailed disposition log of vehicle owner responses.

The most significant program revision implemented in response to the University of Michigan study is the increased emphasis on follow up of potential participants after the initial attempt at contact.

Viking Energy Corporation ( McLean, Virginia) conducted a review of the EFP under contract to EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation ( OPPE). The report entitled, Review of the Mobile Sources Emission Factors Program was completed in February 1986.

The study reviewed the purpose of the MOBILE models, the usefulness of that purpose, how well the models accomplish their goal, and whether the model results can be improved. The findings of the study were listed in 1989' s ICR. As a result of the Viking Study recommendations, we have reviewed and changed the linearity assumption used in the MOBILE model and have more complete documentation of MOBILE than was true for past models.

Following 1993' s ICR submission, EPA was requested to: 5 " conduct additional research to measure and correct any biases arising from selection artifacts. In addition, EPA should examine the magnitude of the effect these potential biases may have on EPA modeling results. The results of this research and any corrective action taken or proposed should be described fully in the next request for approval of this collection."

The following describes the EF program and the improvements made to reduce bias.

One key to the accurate assessment of air quality problems and to estimating reductions in air pollution is the development of reliable emissions inventories, which quantify the total amount of a given pollutant under a specified set of conditions. Emission inventories, usually expressed in tons of pollutant per year, are the product of two factors: emission factors and activity levels. An emission factor expresses the amount of pollution emitted per unit of activity ( i. e., grams of carbon monoxide emitted per vehicle mile traveled). An activity level represents the amount of the given activity that occurs over a specified period of time ( i. e., vehicle miles traveled by highway vehicles in a metropolitan area on a typical summer ozone season day). The sum of the products of the emission factors and activity levels for all sources of a given pollutant constitute the emission inventory for that pollutant.

Since the late 1960s EPA has issued and periodically tightened emission standards applicable to highway motor vehicles. However, the emission standards applicable to new vehicles do not represent the emission factors applicable to those vehicles once they are actually in use. Emissions from vehicles vary over the entire range of conditions that vehicles operate under: ambient temperature, traffic conditions ( represented by average speed in the MOBILE emission factor model), operating mode ( the mix of cold or hot starting and warmed up vehicle operation), fuel volatility and composition, types and condition of emission control equipment and other vehicle or engine components that affect emission levels ( maintenance), expected deterioration in emission control performance with increasing age/ mileage of the vehicle, and other variables all affect the emissions actually produced by vehicles in everyday use. In addition, the in use vehicle fleet is composed of several generations of vehicles and emission control technology, each of which behaves differently in terms of in use emission levels and how these levels change over time ( as the vehicle ages and accumulates higher mileage). Thus average inuse highway vehicle emission factors are estimated using computer models, which allow emission factors for different vehicle types to be estimated under conditions specified by the user of the model and combined into an overall estimate of emission factors 6 for the in use vehicle fleet.

Direct measurement of emission levels from all in use vehicles under all possible conditions is clearly impossible. To estimate in use emission levels, EPA conducts surveys in the form of vehicle test programs, collecting emission data from as many vehicles as is practical over as wide a range of conditions affecting emissions as possible. Time and funding are the constraints that determine what is practical in terms of adding to the emission factor data bases. Over the last 25 years, EPA has collected emissions data from Federal Test Procedure ( FTP) tests on tens of thousands of in use vehicles under the emission factors program ( EFP). The EFP has also accumulated data on thousands of vehicles tested over non FTP cycles ( e. g., speed correction cycles, Highway Fuel Economy Test cycle) and conditions ( e. g., different temperatures, fuels).

The data used to develop the basic emission rates for use in the MOBILE model are collected under the Emission Factors Program ( EFP). Historically, such data have been collected primarily through mail solicitation of owners selected from vehicle registration lists. Under this method of recruitment, privately owned vehicles are recruited by mail ( invitation postcards) to lend their vehicles to EPA ( or an EPA contractor) for testing, and incentives for participation ( e. g., use of late model loaner vehicle) are provided to the vehicle owner. Typical response rates ( the fraction of those owners contacted about participation in the program that agree to participate) have been low, raising concerns about biases in the samples of in use vehicles used to develop the basic emission rates. For example, one might expect that an owner who has knowingly tampered with his vehicle, or one who is aware that the vehicle has not been maintained properly, would be reluctant to provide that vehicle to EPA for emissions tests.

In the last several years, EPA has expanded the EFP to include collecting data from centralized inspection and maintenance ( I/ M) program lanes. In a centralized I/ M program, all vehicles subject to the program requirements must visit one of a relatively few state operated inspection locations for the test. In previous years, EPA took over operation of one lane at the centralized I/ M test site in Hammond, IN for two, two year periods, separated by a one year interruption. In 1996, data collection at the Hammond I/ M lane ceased, and was replaced for a short while by obtaining data from a lane at a test site in Chicago Heights, IL which also has ended. A similar program of data collection is currently operating at one lane of an I/ M site in Mesa, AZ. The required nature of these tests means that there is a far lower degree of self selection bias evidenced in the vehicles that pass through such stations. 7 The I/ M program in Mesa, AZ utilizes the IM240 test, a short dynamometer based transient driving cycle test. This test cycle, which was derived from the Federal Test Procedure ( FTP) driving cycle, measures emissions over a range of vehicle speed and load. Such measurements provide a much more realistic set of emission measurements than do simpler idle based tests. In addition to the substantial reduction in potential sample bias described above, EPA used the data collected from operating one of the lanes in each of these programs to improve the basic emission rates used in the MOBILE model in two other significant ways.

First, EPA obtained IM240 based emissions measurements of HC, CO, and NOx from all of the vehicles that passed through the lanes operated by EPA. They provided emissions results for thousands of vehicles annually at each lane, a considerable increase over the hundreds of vehicles tested annually under the more traditional EFP. Second, EPA randomly solicits a sub sample of the vehicles that pass through the lanes for additional testing ( including full FTP tests) in a laboratory setting. The main benefits are 1) get good sampling frame, 2) thru short test can focus testing on important high emitters and 3) can determine the percent of high emitters from the lane thru short test.

Using the IM240 lane results and the lab based FTP results for those vehicles has enabled EPA to develop a statistical correlation between the IM240 and FTP emission results. This correlation was then used to " predict" the FTP emission results for all of the vehicles that passed through an IM240 lane. This approach both vastly increases the sample sizes available for development of basic emission rates and greatly reduces the bias, particularly with respect to self selection, of the samples.

Another benefit of data collection at an I/ M lane follows from the far higher volume of vehicles that are tested. With so many more vehicles, and ( over time) access to a cross section of almost all vehicles in an I/ M area, EPA was able to obtain significantly more data from vehicles that have " aged." This refers to the ability of testing at such sites to include vehicles that are both " old" ( measured by age) and have very high mileage ( 75,000 to 100,000 and greater). Much of the data on high mileage vehicles that has been collected in recent years came from tests of vehicles that had accumulated mileage at far above average rates ( e. g., a vehicle is only 4 years old but has 80,000 miles). These data provided an opportunity to examine whether the degree of in use deterioration in emission levels is the same for all vehicles that have high mileage ( those that have high mileage because they are used more frequently and/ or for longer trips, and those that have high mileage because they have been in use for a longer number of years. 8 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection This survey does not require periodic reporting or record keeping. Each individual is contacted once and asked to lend his/ her vehicle and complete a questionnaire. No record keeping is required.

3( e) General Guidelines Vehicle owners do not have to plan, generate, or retain any records or information. Participation in the program by each owner is on a voluntary one time basis.

3( f) Confidentiality The only personal information collected in this survey is the name, address and phone number of the owner of individual vehicles. This information is not used for any purpose other than contacting the owner to solicit responses to the questionnaire and schedule the vehicle for testing. This information is not stored in the database, but on CD and in data packets which are kept in secured files.

Vehicle registration information is received from either the State or from a contractor who has agreements with States on maintaining the confidentiality of vehicle owners. This information is received on a CD and used by EPA personnel and/ or contractor to randomly screen vehicles to develop mailings. The CD is locked in a secured filing cabinet with other paper files. The computer is password secured and known only by the Project Officer and two contractor personnel doing the screening. Both the CD and paper packets which includes the personal information are destroyed in 3 years.

Two different contractors ( as listed in Part B 1( c)) are involved in contacting the owner for questionnaire response. These contractors are monitored by two project officers. Each of the contracts have confidentiality clauses that the contractors must adhere to.

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the survey questions are of a sensitive nature. The only personal information this survey requests is the name, address and phone number of the owner of individual vehicles. The purpose of this information is to request answers to the questionnaire and schedule vehicle testing.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes 9 Most respondents to the EFP are members of the general public that own motor vehicles. While some businesses may be targeted to test a particular vehicle, only the registered owner of the vehicle or their representative need respond to a solicitation. There are no SIC codes that correspond to an individual vehicle owner.

4( b) Information Requested 4( b)( i) Data Items, Including Record keeping Requirements Exhibit A is a copy of the questionnaire that respondents are asked to answer by phone interview.

Vehicle owners do not have to plan, generate, or retain any records or information. Any vehicle owner's response to a solicitation to participate in the program is on a voluntary basis.

4( b)( ii) Respondent Activities EPA generally uses two methods of soliciting the general public for participation in Emission Factor Program ( EFP):

A random selection of vehicle owners using State motor vehicle owner registration lists ( may be derived from several sources) and,

A random selection of motor vehicle owners who arrive at State inspection lanes for yearly certification.

Under either solicitation procedure, potential participants have no obligation or burden other than responding to the questionnaire. The vehicle owners do not have to plan, generate, or retain any records or information. Participation in the program by each owner is on a voluntary one time basis. When EPA or its contractor returns a loaned vehicle, the owner's role in the program ends. Positive respondent activities in the program are to: read materials or discuss the program with an EPA representative, complete the questionnaire, make the vehicle available for testing, and return any loaner vehicle to EPA.

Initial contact with individuals identified on a State vehicle owner registration list is by means of introductory letters ( Exhibit B.) Respondents reply by returning a preprinted card which indicates their willingness to participate in the program ( Exhibit C). If there is no response to the initial mailing, a follow up letter ( Exhibit D) is sent, and attempts are made to contact the potential participants by telephone. Failing this, any further attempts to solicit the individual are halted. In any case, solicitation of an individual stops immediately if 10 there is unwillingness to participate in the program.

A positive response may result in an additional contact. At this time, vehicle descriptive questions ( e. g., length of vehicle, air conditioning, etc.) are asked either over the phone or in person, in accordance with the participant's wishes. It documents the history of the vehicle prior to its arrival for evaluation at the testing facility.

Willing participants deliver their vehicles to the testing facility, or, at their preference arrange for program representatives to pickup. While the vehicle undergoes emissions testing by EPA ( a period of approximately two to three weeks), the owner has the option of using a loaner vehicle plus receiving a small compensation of $ 5 to $ 10 per day or, if they choose not to use a loaner vehicle, they will receive a higher compensation, up to $ 25 per day for the use of their vehicle.

The solicitation process for vehicles that arrive at state inspection lanes is a two step process. First, qualifying vehicles entering the lane are identified and approached by EPA representatives. Vehicle owners are then asked if they would like to participate in the EFP and a cash incentive ( up to $ 250/ week) and a loaner vehicle are offered to the vehicle owner. If the owner agrees to participate in the program, he/ she is asked vehicle descriptive questions ( e. g., length of vehicle, air conditioning, etc.). Generally the participant exchanges their vehicle for a loaner vehicle while they are at the inspection lane. The vehicle is then taken to the test lab to undergo testing by the EPA contractor over a two to three week period. A count of all vehicle owners responses is kept, as well as, the number of vehicles using the emission lanes. ( Part B, Section 3 provides some more detail on the purpose and analysis methodology for the inspection lane type of program.)

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities Emission testing of each vehicle is performed at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emission Laboratory ( NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as well as at contractor facilities located elsewhere. The testing of vehicles solicited from the inspection lane is performed at present by a contractor with laboratories located in Phoenix, Arizona and East Liberty, Ohio. The exact number and location of contractor facilities varies, depending upon resources available.

The emission test results from the participant's vehicle are the major focus of Agency analyses. The emission data from 11 current test programs are combined with that of previous programs and analyses are conducted. The analyses are of the following types:

N Regression analysis of emissions as a function of test vehicle mileage.

N Estimation of the frequency of high emitting vehicles based on data and engineering judgment.

N Development of additive or multiplicative correction factors for vehicle speeds, ambient temperatures, and fuel types for various conditions.

An EPA contractor asks the vehicle owner nine or fewer questions that provide information on the vehicle's usage. The questions cover such subjects as vehicle condition, number of trips per day, and age of vehicle. This information helps EPA to assess the significance of the emission data. The questionnaire information is used only indirectly in MOBILE to help understand an individual vehicle's emission results.

MOBILE is a computer model that predicts levels of criteria pollutant emissions ( hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide) for on highway vehicles, including automobiles and trucks, through the year 2020 and beyond. The basic function of MOBILE is summarized in the following formula:

EF = ER MYR x TF x CF where:

N EF is the emission factor in grams/ mile ( g/ mi) for a particular pollutant in a given calendar year and for a specific vehicle type.

N MYR is model year or vintage; the most recent 25 model years are included.

N ER is the pollutants average emission rate in g/ mi for that particular model year vehicle.

N TF is the fraction of miles traveled by that vintage vehicle in the given calendar year.

N CF is the correction factor for different speeds, temperatures, and hot/ cold start percentages, and fuel volatility.

Pollutant emission rates ( ER) and the correction factors ( CF) are the components of MOBILE derived from emission factors testing. The emission rate is estimated as a piecewise linear function of odometer miles. Other inputs to MOBILE ( model year mix, miles traveled, etc.) can be either nationwide averages or locally defined estimates, based on the particular need to be met and are derived from other public and commercial sources not in the EFP.

The Agency activities are summarized in the following list: 12 1. set up and maintain database, 2. solicit vehicles for testing, 3. test vehicles for emissions, 4. upload data to database, 5. quality control and quality analysis of data, 6. analyze data and distribute to users.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management All phases of the Emission Factor Program, including vehicle procurement, testing, and data analysis, are guided by quality assurance plans and the use of: routine diagnostic tests per vehicle specific scheduling requirements, paired data and correlation of industry vehicles for confirmation testing, equipment database to track calibration and NIST standards.

Vehicle procurement follows in general random selection of test vehicle, from either an IM lane or state vehicle owner's list. Specific procurement criteria are the subject of each work assignment. Quality Assurance procedures are specified in each of the vehicle testing contracts.

Vehicle testing and quality assurance follows the test procedures in CFR 86 Subpart B, C, D, M, N, and O. Specific test requirements and quality assurance are outlined in individual work assignments. Data is previewed by the work assignment manager and by quality assurance specifications found in the data loading programs used by the Assessment and Modeling Division ( AMD). AMD has an extensive quality assurance process that is based on continuous improvement.

The following data are computer recorded for each participant's vehicle: vehicle identification information ( make, model, engine size, etc.), vehicle condition, and emission test results. To insure the privacy of the vehicle's owner, the vehicle owner's name, address, and phone number are not recorded in a computer database. Some data is recorded by an emission analyzer. Computer recorded data which includes electronic data on vehicle information, and exhaust or evaporative emissions is processed through a computerized quality control program that checked for completeness, reasonableness, and consistency. The data is stored in a relational database at the NVFEL. The database has a quality control program.

The vehicle owner may receive his vehicle's emission results upon request. Access to the database is available to the public if requested. Auto manufacturers, the oil industry, and other pollution control agencies including state and local governments are the main users of the database.

The results of most of EPA's analyses of the data are 13 published in the form of a series of computer models ( the current version of which is MOBILE5b), its companion document AP 42 the compilation of mobile source emission estimates, or various technical reports on specific analyses. Further, EPA holds public workshops periodically to present the results of analyses and their potential impact on the MOBILE models.

5( c) SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY The survey does not involve small businesses or small entities. The survey solicits individual vehicle owners. When selecting vehicles from vehicle registration lists, EPA has established a policy of limiting mailings of materials to owners of selected classes of vehicles or model years undergoing testing. In addition, instead of asking questions of each potential participant, questionnaire information is asked only of those ultimately selected for testing. All information collected is recorded and stored in computer format, thus expediting the collection, storage, and retrieval of the data.

5( d) COLLECTION SCHEDULE The EFP is an ongoing program. Vehicle owners are contacted on a continuous basis. The MOBILE models are usually revised every 3 to 5 years to account for the new data and analyses that have been done; the revisions have been more frequent since the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Evaluation of the data is an ongoing activity.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) ESTIMATING VEHICLE OWNERS ( RESPONDENT) BURDEN AND INQUIRY BURDEN The attached materials represent those items required to be filled in by the vehicle owners. First, for the traditional EFP, a random selection of owners are mailed an introductory letter ( Exhibit B) which includes a question and answer sheet that is mailed back to us in a postage paid envelop. This " package" is mailed only to those owners, selected from State motor vehicle registration lists, who have registered vehicles of interest to the program. If there is no response to the first package a follow up letter ( Exhibit D) is sent.

For individuals solicited from an inspection lane, an EPA representative explains the program and asks the vehicle owner to participate. This process replaces the steps outlined for contacting vehicle owners by mail.

In either case, the questionnaire ( Exhibit A) is filled in by an EPA representative who asks the vehicle owner nine multiple 14 Estimating Burden and Cost to Vehicle Owner at IM Lanes 6( a) and ( b): Estimating Burden and Cost to Vehicle Owner at IM Lanes 7 and Beyond Annual Labor and Cost to Vehicle Owner Labor Time Vehicle Number Total Vehicle Owner Ow ner of Survey Costs ($ 27.5 Hour Contacts Hours per hour)

Program Discussion/ Invitation ( 1) 0.25 3000 750 $ 20,625 Fill Out Questionaire ( 2) 0.083 1200 99.6 $ 2,739 Return Owners Car from Test Site ( 3) 0.5 1200 600 $ 16,500 Total ( Hours) 1449.6 Total ( Cost) $ 39,864 ( 1) Assumes looking at each vehicle in IM Lane approxiamately 3000 vehicles.

( 2) Assumes 1200 positive responses from owners.

( 3) Assumes an average one w ay trip length of 10 miles at an average speed of 25 mph for 1200 vehicles randomly selected.

Special Note: There are no capital and startup costs since questionaires are sent to respondents. choice questions, of those participants who express an interest in the program.

Tables 1 2 lists the inquiry burden hours for both types of vehicle solicitation utilized in the EFP. The burden hour estimates were determined based upon in field experience of both solicitation types. The mileage figures of 21 and 10 miles for the trip to the test site or inspection lane was calculated from the questionnaire information. It was assumed the 25 mph represents and average speed in an urban area. The trip mileage and speed were combined to determine the length of time the vehicle owner spends returning the loaner vehicle.

Table 1  Estimating Burden and Cost to Vehicle Owner at IM Lanes 15 Estimating Burden and Cost to Vehicle Owner from Registration List 6( a) and ( b): Estimating Burden and Cost to Vehicle Ow ner from Registration Lists Annual Labor and Cost to Vehicle Ow ner Labor Time Vehicle Number Total Vehicle Ow ner Ow ner of Mailings Survey Costs ($ 27.5 Hour or Responses Hours per hour)

Read Information in Mailing ( 4) 0.1667 750 125.025 $ 3,438 Fill Out and Return Post Card/ Questionaire 0.083 450 37.35 $ 1,027 Follow Phone Calls to Respondents 0.083 450 37.35 $ 1,027 Drive To and From Test Site ( 5) 1 100 100 $ 2,750 Total Annual ( Hours) 199.725 Total Annual ( Cost) $ 8,242 ( 4) Assumes that all postal cards are delivered to vehicle owner.

( 5) Assumes an average one w ay trip length of 21 miles at an average speed of 25 mph for 100 vehicles randomly selected.

Special Note: There are no capital and startup costs since questionaires are sent to respondents.

ANNUAL RESPONDENT TOTALS 1649.325 $ 48,106 Table 2  Estimating Burden and Cost to Vehicle Owners from Registration List Respondents are provided remuneration for their time and inconvenience ( See Part A Section 4 ( b) pg. 10) and that cost is therefore an Agency cost.

6( b) ESTIMATING INQUIRY COSTS The inquiry collection costs are incorporated in Tables 1 2 listed below. The respondents are provided remuneration for their time and inconvenience ( See Part A, Section 3 ( b)( iii)) and that cost is therefore an Agency cost.

6( c) ESTIMATING AGENCY BURDEN AND COST The Agency cost burden is determined by the contract dollars spent and the salary paid to EPA personnel and contractors. The contract costs cover inspection, repair and testing of vehicles, as well as, data entry, quality control, and storage. On an annual average, EPA devotes 4 person years to planning and monitoring the program, processing the data, and design/ maintaining the database. An " average" GS 12 salary ( FY98 16 Detroit area General Schedule) was assumed for EPA personnel cost estimates. The estimate of agency cost burden is in Table 3.

6( d) ESTIMATING VEHICLE OWNER AND INQUIRY UNIVERSE AND TOTAL BURDEN COSTS There is no universe labor or burden costs associated with the vehicle owner or inquiry other then what has been listed in 6( a) and 6( b). The Agency cost for testing owner's vehicles has been listed in 6( c). 17 Agency Burden 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Annual Agency Burden Labor Time and Costs Manager Technician Clerical Agency Labor Capital & Total Total $ 62.50 $ 48.07 $ 25.00 Hours per Cost per Startup O & M Agency Agency per Hour per Hour per Hour Year Year Costs Costs Hours Costs Vehicle Selection/ Recruitment ( 1) 30 65 2752 2847 $ 73,799.55 0 0 2847 $ 73,799.55 Expand/ Maintain Database 100 6240 0 6340 306,206.80 0 0 6340 $ 306,206.80 Write Statement of Work ( SOW) for Test Programs. 100 1200 0 1300 63,934.00 0 0 1300 $ 63,934.00 Testing Vehicles ( 2) 2080 49920 0 52000 2,529,654.40 0 0 52000 $ 2,529,654.40 Quality Control/ Quality Assure Data. 520 4160 0 4680 232,471.20 0 0 4680 $ 232,471.20 Analyze Test Data. 520 4160 0 4680 232,471.20 0 0 4680 $ 232,471.20 Monitoring Test Programs. 520 800 0 1320 70,956.00 0 0 1320 $ 70,956.00 Review Programs and Write Reports. 200 800 0 1000 50,956.00 0 0 1000 $ 50,956.00 Subtotals: 4070 67345 2752 74167 $ 3,560,449.15 0 0 Total Annual Agency ( Hours) 74167 Annual Agency ( Costs) $ 3,560,449.15 ( 1) Assumes vehicle selection by registration lists and IM lanes as specified in 6( a) & 6( b).

( 2) Assumes testing vehicles by both Agency and Contractor programs in 6( a) and ( b).

Table 3  Agency's Estimated Burden for the Future 18 Agency Burden 6( e) Bottom Lne Burden Hours and Cost Tables Annual Agency Burden Total Vehicle Total Ow ner/ Inquiry Agency Total Hours Total Labor Hours Hours per Year Cost per Year Estimated Future Burden 1649 74167 75816 $ 3,608,555.59 6( e) BOTTOM LINE BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS The total Agency burden hours and costs are provided in Table 4.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Table Annual Agency Burden Table 4  Total Agency Burden for Future 19 6( f) REASONS FOR CHANGE IN BURDEN The calculated respondent burden has decreased since the last submission of the ICR as illustrated in 6( e). The previous estimate submitted to OMB did not fully estimate third party labor and cost which were reflected in this new updated ICR. The decrease in hours between the previous ( 1995) and the current ICR submission is due entirely to budget reductions with a resulting decrease in the number of vehicles to test in the EPA contractor operated state I/ M Lane and at the contractor's testing facility. Reductions in burden to the Agency has also occurred because of increases in efficiencies and streamlining that the Agency have developed over the past two years ( e. g. improved database design, quality controls/ quality assurances, standardizing data input tables and test processes for gathering data from vehicle test programs.

6( g) BURDEN STATEMENT The EPA Emission Inventory Group, through contractors, solicits the general public to voluntarily offer their vehicle for emissions testing. The owner is also asked to complete a multiple choice form of nine questions that summarize vehicle usage. There are two methods of soliciting the general public for participation in the Emission Factor Program ( EFP):

1. Postal cards are sent to a random selection of vehicle owners using State motor vehicle registration lists.

2. A random selection of motor vehicle owners who arrive at State emission inspection stations on an annual or biennial schedule.

Information from the EFP provides a basis for developing State Implementation Plans ( SIPs), Reasonable Further Progress ( RFP) reports, attainment status assessments for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS).

The legislative basis for the Emission Factor Program is Section 103( a)( 1)( 2)( 3) of the Clean Air Act, which requires the Administrator to:

" conduct * * * research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, and control of air pollution" and " conduct investigations and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of air pollution in cooperation with any air pollution control agency * * *"

EPA uses the data from the EFP to formulate the equations of the computer model known as MOBILE, which calculates the contribution of mobile source emissions to ambient air pollution. MOBILE is used by EPA, state and local air pollution agencies, the auto industry, and other parties interested in estimating mobile source emissions.

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response for a contractor laboratory 20 questionnaire and up to 2 hours per response for a post card questionnaire, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing the questionnaire, and delivering the vehicle for testing.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to: Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM 223, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S. W., Washington, DC 20460; and the Paperwork Reduction Project ( OMB # 2060 0078), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D. C. 20503. 21 PART B 1. SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES 1( a) Survey Objectives The primary objective of the EFP is to obtain national estimates of emissions for various types of in use highway vehicles. Other EFP objectives are listed below:

N Determine the effect of emission related technology on emissions ( ex. determine the impact of fuel injection on the emissions of the automobile fleet).

N Estimate the emission levels of vehicles as they accumulate mileage or age.

N Assess the emission effects of various vehicle operating conditions ( ex. fuel used, warm up condition of engine, speed, etc.).

N Estimate the emission levels of vehicles under typical ambient conditions ( ex. ambient temperature, humidity, etc.).

1( b) Key Variables The key variables that describe vehicles are: vehicle type, emission control technology, fuel system, and age or mileage.

Vehicle type refers to the categories of vehicle; they are automobile, truck, or motorcycle. Emission levels vary among vehicle types due to the vehicle size, emission control equipment, and usage. The EFP generally focused on automobiles and light trucks because they accounted for 80 to 90 percent of the vehicle miles traveled. For 1998 and in the future, the EFP will be more focused on trucks, ( light, medium and light heavy duty) and heavy duty vehicles.

The fuel system is another important determinant of the level of vehicle emissions. Fuel systems include diesel and gasoline types. Within the gasoline fuel systems, the three major categories of interest are carbureted, throttle body fuel injected, and port fuel injected systems.

The emission levels of vehicles also depend on the control technology of the vehicle. Emission control technology has become more advanced because of government emission regulations, the effort to improve fuel efficiency, and computer improvements.

Vehicle emissions often deteriorate as the vehicle ages or accumulates mileage. The EFP tests a given vehicle group at several different points in the group's lifetime to determine the effects of age/ mileage.

There are other important variables that influence vehicle emissions that are not characteristics of the vehicles themselves, but of 22 the conditions under which they operate. The other variables that the EFP is concerned with are: the type of gasoline used, the speed, temperature, and humidity under which the vehicle is operated, and the amount of engine warm up.

1( c) Statistical Approach A statistical approach was chosen for the Emission Factor Program since it is necessary to test vehicles to measure the emission levels. Anecdotal or other survey types do not provide an accurate measure of emissions. The vehicles sampled in the EFP represent the major types of emission control systems and technologies. The vehicles are tested under a variety of operating conditions to estimate emissions that reflect in use operation.

The two contractors that currently work on different aspects of the Emissions Factors Program are:

EG& G Automotive Research Solicit vehicle owners and 2565 Plymouth Road administer questionnaire Ann Arbor, MI 48105 in Ann Arbor, MI Headquarters: 5404 Bandera Road San Antonio, TX 78238 Automotive Testing Laboratories Solicit vehicle owners, 263 S. Mulberry St. administer questionnaire, and Mesa, AZ 85202 perform emission tests Headquarters: In Phoenix, AZ P. O. Box 289 East Liberty, OH 43319 A third contractor ( IOCAD Engineering Services) that had done work supporting the EFP was discontinued in March 1998 due to streamlining of the EF database.

1( d) Feasibility N Respondent obstacles  The respondent is asked to complete a questionnaire as part of the EFP. The questions can be answered by recollection without reference to any records the individual may keep on the vehicle.

N Sufficient funding  The EFP is a long standing program with an annual budget allocation. The level of funding may vary from year to year. If the level of funding is less than anticipated or the costs of the program exceed expectation in a given year, the planned testing is carried over into the following year.

N Timing of results for decision making  The results of the EFP are 23 used primarily in the computer models, MOBILE. The MOBILE models are usually updated every three to five years with the EFP data that has been accumulated.

2. Survey Design 2( a) Target Population and Coverage The target population for the EFP is all operating highway vehicles of a certain type, say light duty trucks ( LDTs) or heavy duty trucks ( HDTs). The particular vehicle type that is of interest in any one EFP is determined by need in MOBILE and vehicle availability. The first selection criterion for vehicle type is the impact on the total emission burden. Motorcycles, for example, only account for one percent of the onroad vehicle travel and no more than 1.4 percent of the pollutants from all on road vehicles. Because of their small impact it is not cost effective to test more motorcycles and MOBILE motorcycle emission rates are based on EFP samples collected previously. The second reason for selecting a vehicle type for the EFP is to obtain data on vehicles representing a new technology that has just been introduced. Finally, a vehicle type may be selected for testing if it represents current technology at an age or mileage that is older than tested previously. The EFP usually focuses on automobiles and trucks.

The population coverage is restricted to no more than three metropolitan.

The coverage is restricted due to costs and the availability of test facilities.

2( b) Sample Design 2( b)( i) Sampling frame For the traditional EFP, the sampling frame is the vehicle registration list corresponding to zip code areas within a 50 mile area of Ann Arbor, Michigan. The registration list is obtained from the State motor vehicle department. The registration list is updated by the State on a daily basis. The EFP obtains registration lists only once per year. There are no legal restrictions on the registration lists for Michigan.

The sampling frame is the inspection lane itself for the other form of EFP solicitation. Arrangements were made with the states where the I/ M lanes are located to set up a solicitation process in an established inspection location in each state. The eligible state inspection programs are designed so that all individuals wishing to register their vehicles for operation must go to a state run inspection at a centralized location.

Although no confidentiality restraints were put on EPA by the states involved, EPA does not release any personal identification information about the vehicle owners who participate in the EFP. 24 2( b)( ii) Sample size Exhibit E provides a tentative list of vehicle sample sizes expected in FY99.

2( b)( iii) Stratification variables The stratification variables in the Emission Factor Program are model year group ( grouped by like emission standards), fuel system type, and or emission control system. The EPA engine family designation is linked to each of these variables. So engine family is often the stratum used in the EFP.

Emission level category is an additional stratification variable used at the inspection lane type of the EFP. A short emissions test is performed at the lane that categorizes the vehicle into one of two emission levels. At the lane, the stratification variables are emission level, model year group, and fuel system type.

2( b)( iv) Sampling method Vehicle owners are randomly selected from the inspection lane in each of the two emission level categories.

Probability sampling in proportion to vehicle sales is used in selecting vehicle owners from the registration lists.

2( b)( v) Multi stage Sampling Multi stage sampling is not used in the EFP.

2( c) Precision Requirements 2( c)( i) Precision targets The objective of the survey design is to characterize emissions for particular technology types at specific mileage intervals: for example, 1993 model year passenger vehicles with fuel injected systems that have accumulated more than 66,000 miles. The total sample is determined by the following formula:

N = \| f(( t x cv) 2, p2) Where: N = required number of vehicles for testing t = the value of t distribution at 95% confidence level p = the precision desired, generally ± 15 20% cv = coefficient of variation determined from other test programs. ( The largest cv among the three pollutants HC, CO, NO x is used to size sample.) 25 This formula produces the number of vehicles that must be tested in order to provide emission data at a satisfactory degree of accuracy for each pollutant of interest. The testing program follows a multi year strategy; each year's testing results are aggregated with those of previous years to produce the most accurate and reliable picture of vehicle emissions performance. Testing is targeted at pollutants and vehicle classes characterized by the highest statistical variability in order to reduce the errors in the measurements.

As an example of this cumulative multi year process, the following table summarizes precision estimates for the emissions of carbon monoxide for 1993 fuel injected vehicles. Carbon monoxide is the pollutant with the greatest variability. Testing of these vehicles was performed during 1994 98. ___________________________________________________________________________

Cumulative Precision in Emission Factors Sample of Fuel Injected 1997 Models ( as tested in programs funded in Fiscal Years 1997 through 1998)

FY 0 50K Miles 50 100K Miles > 100K Miles To Be Program N Precision(%)* N Precision(%)* N Precision(%)* Procured 97 98 34 ± 18 2 ± 75 0  15 97 99 40 ± 17 20 ± 24 2 ± 75 26 97 00 46 ± 16 30 ± 19 10 ± 34 24 97 01 49 ± 15 35 ± 18 20 ± 24 18 97 02 53 ± 15 40 ± 17 20 ± 24 9 Based on the cv of 1997 cars for NOx * at 95 percent confidence level ______________________________________________________________________

***** The sampling of fuel injected vehicles is an example of the special efforts required to represent future technology. Fuel injected vehicles were estimated to represent 98% of the 1991 model year vehicle sales. However, the sales of fuel injected vehicles in the past few years are less than 10% in 1980 and about 80% in 1988. Obviously, new models of fuel injected vehicles are being added each model year. The problem is to obtain as representative mix of models for the future as is possible when the fleet is still in the process of converting to fuel injection. The current EFP approach is to sample each engine model of fuel injected vehicles in proportion to its projected 1988 sales ( the latest year for which projections exist). In each calendar year, new models of fuel injected engines are sampled. This type of sampling may result in a larger overall sample size then sampling one time in, say, 1990. However, MOBILE emission projections are sensitive to the fuel injection models and current projections are certainly more accurate with our best estimate of fuel injection emissions than they would be if we waited for the fuel injection fleet to stabilize. 26 2( c)( ii) Non sampling Error Unusual problems requiring special sampling  MOBILE is most often used to predict future emission estimates for the mobile source fleet. Therefore, special efforts are required to sample vehicles representing future technology as well as vehicles representing current technology as they deteriorate or age. For the latter situation, special sampling of advanced mileage vehicles is performed. These vehicles are solicited based on the criterion that they have higher mileage than is normally accumulated by vehicles of similar vintage.

Other potential biases were discussed previously in Part A, Section 5( b).

2( d) Questionnaire Design The questionnaire is attached as Exhibit A. Questionnaire information is not used directly to characterize emission levels. Questionnaire responses help to confirm the emission measurements made on the vehicle. The purpose of these questions is to verify the under hood inspection results and to support the measured emission levels from the vehicle.

Three types questions are on the form: 1) age and mileage of the vehicle, 2) the number and type of trips, and 3) the condition of the vehicle's emission control system.

Questions regarding age and mileage are used to verify the observed odometer reading. These questions help ensure the accuracy of EPA's estimate of mileage effects on emissions.

Questions about the type and number of trips are used to interpret the condition of the vehicle evaporative control system. The remaining questions provide information about the other emission controls.

3. PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS The FY93 questionnaire shall be used for the FY96 FY99 period. The FY93 questionnaire is a streamlined version of the questionnaire used in the past 18 years. Extensive questionnaire testing and revisions have been in process since 1997.

The questionnaire is multiple choice questions with a few fillin the blanks. The questions were put in multiple choice style so that EPA could obtain the answer in the preferred form or ranges.

EPA has eliminated many questions that have not been found to be useful. The questionnaire now consists of only nine questions. Some questions have been rewritten to be more understandable. 27 4. COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW UP 4( a) Collection Methods There are two types of collection in the EFP. The first is the questionnaire information. The questionnaire usually is administered through an interview. The interviewers are instructed by EPA personnel on what prompting questions are appropriate. No other interviewer training is required since the questionnaire is not the primary survey instrument.

The other type of collection in the EFP is the emission measurements that are conducted in a laboratory. Those measurements are needed to accurately characterize the emission levels of each vehicle.

4( b) Survey Response and Follow Up The target response rates for the historical EFP is 25 percent. The response rate is illustrated by the typical example given below. This example is based on a sample of 1988 Chrysler automobiles tested in during FY90 in Ann Arbor, Michigan:

1. Ultimate tested sample size  6 vehicles 2. Size of mailing  46 names 3. Estimated participation rate  23 percent ( 8 interested / 35 who still live in the area and who still own the vehicles). Response Number a. Interested 8 b. Not Interested 19 c. No longer own vehicles 9 d. No longer live in area 2 e. Unable to deliver 2 f. No response 6 46 In the 1980s, a concern had been raised about the Emission Factor Program regarding the historically low response and participation rate by vehicle owners. This hesitancy to participate by vehicle owners is largely understandable, since the request to borrow a vehicle for several weeks is far from trivial. There has been intensive analysis of this issue by the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center in the early 1980s and by a focus interview/ survey conducted early this year. To maximize response rates, a follow up mailing and phone call to the owner is made, the owner is provided with a new model loaner vehicle and a small monetary incentive, and the owner's vehicle can be picked up and/ or delivered by the EPA contractor. Further activities will be tried to improve the solicitation materials and promote the program in the Ann Arbor area. 28 The participation rate in the EFP for vehicle owners who are solicited from the Hammond inspection lane is much greater than the rate in the traditional EFP. The participation rate in Hammond is discussed in section 5( b) of Part A.

There are probably many reasons that the participation rate is higher in this type of EFP. Some of the reasons may be: personal contact between the EPA representative and the vehicle owner; the owner can observe an emissions test that is similar to those his/ her vehicle would be subject to; the specific loaner vehicle that the owner will receive is available for immediate examination; if the vehicle fails the State inspection, EPA agrees to fix the vehicle.

5. ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS 5( a) Data Preparation The accuracy of the emission rates are ensured by adherence to standard test procedures. The procedures for several of the tests ( e. g., Federal Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy Test) were developed as part of various regulations and were therefore subject to intensive review by both EPA and the regulated industry. All the test procedures utilized in the EFP are described in the test procedure manuals maintained by the Testing Services Division. The specific procedures applicable to the EFP are referenced in the April 3, 1987 memo, " Revised Memo of Understanding  EF Test Procedures."

The data for the EFP are entered into the computer data base in several ways. First, the questionnaire and some basic vehicle identification information is coded on data forms. This information is keyed into a computer file through a keypunch emulator that requires keying verification. The emissions data are entered in a variety of ways, depending upon the capabilities of the test facility supplying the data. Most of the emissions data collected at the Ann Arbor test facility is transmitted directly from the measurement equipment to the computer files. Most of the emissions data provided by contractors is coded on data forms or floppy disks and transmitted to EPA.

An in house contractor provided data entry and review for EPA up until March 1998 ( the contract was not renewed). The quality control measures provided by this contractor are outlined in the quality assurance plan: Centralized Processing of In Use Vehicle Emissions Data, September 1990.

All aspects of quality control other than data entry and final review are governed by the quality assurance plans referred to in Part A, Section 4( b).

5( b) Data Analysis 29 Generally the basic emission rates are estimated by linear or piecewise linear regression of emissions ( dependent variable) versus vehicle mileage ( independent variable) using all the data collected in past EFPs pertaining to a given vehicle type.

The basic emission rates provide estimates for average urban summer conditions for ambient temperature and vehicle speed. The MOBILE user needs to predict emissions at other than these average test conditions. EFP data are also used to estimate correction factors for nonstandard test conditions. Again in this situation, least squares regression procedures are used to determine the prediction equation for emissions ( dependent variable) as a function of ambient temperature or average speed ( independent variables). The regression equation is then normalized to the average urban summer conditions to apply as a correction factor to the basic emission rate equation.

5( c) Data Reporting The EFP emission results on an individual vehicle are made available to the vehicle owner upon request. All the data recorded on the EFP data base is available upon request on CD ROM eventually it will be available from the EPA Internet website.

The EFP data are analyzed and used in a series of computer models, the MOBILE models. The documentation of MOBILE is a supplement to a series of reports known as AP42. The last formal update to AP42 ( Supplement A to the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors  Volume II: Mobile Sources) was published January 1991. Portions of this supplement ( Appendices G, H, I, J and K) have been updated since that time are available on the EPA Web Site ( www. epa. gov). EPA is in the process of updating the MOBILE model itself and technical reports relevant to the analysis are posted on the EPA Website for stakeholder review. Public MOBILE workshops were held in March and October 1997. Completion of the updated MOBILE model is expected in fiscal year 2000. 30 Exhibit A 31 Exhibit B 32 Exhibit C 33 Exhibit D 34 Exhibit E Tentative Test Targets for FY99 and Beyond EFP Number of Vehicle Type Vehicles 1. Tier 1 ( MY1994+) Vehicles 150  250 2. Pre Tier 1 ( MY1985  1994) Vehicles 50  150 3. MY1996+ OBDII Vehicle Failures 50  100 4. MY1996+ OBDII Vehicle Failure Checks 1000 5. 1988 1998 Vehicles  Evaporative Emissions 60 6. 1990 1998 Vehicles  Resting Losses 20 7. 1986 1998 Vehicles  Off Cycle Emissions 60 ( e. g. Air conditioning, load)

8. 1989 1998 Vehicles  Fuel Sulfur Emissions 60 9. Alternate Fuels Testing 20 10. 1990 98 Vehicles  Real Time Exhaust Measurements 50 11. 1990 1998 Vehicles  High Speed 50 12. Nitrous Oxide Exhaust Emissions 50 Total Number of Vehicles 1620  1870 Rationale for Vehicle Type Selection:

The general rationale for selecting these vehicles is described in Section 1 in Part B.

Items 1. The testing of newer models of Tier 1 exhaust emission vehicles is required to round out the current sample of this type of vehicle. The newer models will better represent the future in terms of engine and manufacturer mix.

Item 2. The testing of older, aged vehicles is required to round out the current sample of this type of vehicles. The newer models will better represent the future in terms of engine and manufacturer mix. 35 Items 3 and 4. The testing of newer models that contain new onboard diagnostic warning lights are required to determine the effectiveness of the program and quantify emissions.

Items 5 and 6: The testing of old and new vehicles on evaporative emissions including running losses is required to round out the current sample of this type of vehicles. The newer models will better represent the future in terms of engine and manufacturer mix.

Item 7: The testing of off cycle emissions ( e. g. air conditioning, and loads, etc.) is required to assess the emission impact on the mobile source inventory. The newer models will better represent the future in terms of engine and manufacturer mix.

Item 8: The testing of fuel sulfur effects on new technology vehicles is off cycle emissions ( e. g. air conditioning, and loads, etc.) is required to assess the emission impact on the mobile source inventory.

Item 9: The testing of alternative fueled vehicles ( newer technology) is required to assess the emission impact on the mobile source inventory.

Item 10: The real time testing ( versus dynamometer testing) of vehicles is required to assess actually driving conditions on emissions.

Item 11: Increases in the speed limit requires an assessment of driving cycles to assure that this driving condition is represented in the driving cycles.

Item 12: The testing of vehicles is required to assess and quantify the contributions of nitrous oxide ( greenhouse gas) from mobile sources.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56258]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2018-C-4117]

Sensient Colors, LLC; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that we have filed a petition, submitted by Sensient Colors, LLC,
proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for
the safe use of an aqueous extract of butterfly pea flower (Clitoria
ternatea) as a color additive in various food categories, at levels
consistent with good manufacturing practice.

DATES: The color additive petition was filed on October 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen DiFranco, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus
Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice
that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 8C0313) submitted by
Exponent, Inc. on behalf of Sensient Colors, LLC, 1150 Connecticut Ave.
NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036. The petition proposes to amend
the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73), ``Listing
of Color Additives Exempt From Certification,'' to provide for the safe
use of an aqueous extract of butterfly pea flower (Clitoria ternatea)
as a color additive in: (1) Alcoholic beverages (liquor, liqueurs, and
flavored alcoholic beverages); (2) ready-to-drink non-alcoholic
beverages; (3) liquid coffee creamers (dairy and non[hyphen]dairy); (4)
ice cream and frozen dairy desserts; (5) fruit preparation in yogurt;
(6) chewing gum; (7) coated nuts; (8) hard candy; and (9) soft candy,
at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice.
    The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically
excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because the substance is intended to
remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to
replace macronutrients in food. In addition, the petitioner has stated
that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA
determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA
determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an
environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.

    Dated: November 6, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-24662 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7752]
[DOCID:fr14fe06-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-202-000]

Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Tariff
Filing

February 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 1, 2006, Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C. (Cheyenne Plains) tendered for filing as part of its
FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 401,
to become effective March 1, 2006.
    Cheyenne Plains states that the tariff sheet updates the Form of
Service Agreement for Rate Schedule FT, clarifying that a specific date
or triggering event may be used as the contract begin date.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2030 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42360-42361]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13951]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0068; FRL-11125-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; NSPS for VOC Emissions From Petroleum Refinery Wastewater
Systems (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for VOC Emissions from
Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (EPA ICR Number 1136.14, OMB
Control Number 2060-0172) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through August 31, 2023. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register on July 22, 2022 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0068, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred
method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this specific information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through April 30, 2023. An agency may
neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it displayed a currently valid
OMB control number.
    Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register
on April 29, 2022 during a 60-day comment period (85 FR 23825). This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Supporting
documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be
collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket
can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA
Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for VOC
Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ) were proposed on May 4, 1987; and promulgated on November
23, 1988. These regulations apply to existing facilities and new
wastewater systems at petroleum refineries, and cover individual drain
systems, oil-water separators, and aggregate facilities. An individual
drain system consists of all process drains connected to the first
downstream junction box. An oil-water separator is the wastewater
treatment equipment used to separate oil from water. An aggregate
facility is an individual drain system together with ancillary
downstream sewer lines and oil-water separators, down to and including
the secondary oil-water separator, as applicable. Aggregate facilities
are intended to capture any potential VOC emissions within the
petroleum refinery wastewater system during expansions of and additions
to the system. New facilities include those that commenced
construction, modification, or reconstruction after the date of
proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance with
40 CFR part 60, subpart QQQ.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Existing and new wastewater systems
at petroleum refineries.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart QQQ).
    Estimated number of respondents: 130 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 8,900 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,340,000 (per year), which includes $16,900
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The adjustment decrease in burden from
the most recently approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of
sources. The previous ICR included 149 respondents, while this ICR only
includes 130. Petroleum refinery capacities have been declining since
2020, including the associated wastewater systems. This ICR estimated
the number of respondents using data collected by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration. The decrease in the number of sources also
led to a decrease of the Capital and Operation & Maintenance costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-13951 Filed 6-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7452-7454]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2609-009; ER10-2606-009; ER10-2604-007; ER10-
2603-007; ER10-2602-010.
    Applicants: Luke Paper Company, Escanaba Paper Company,
Consolidated Water Power Company, NewPage Energy Services, LLC, Rumford
Paper Company.
    Description: Supplement to June 30, 2014 Updated Northeast Region
Market Analysis of the NewPage MBR Companies.
    Filed Date: 10/8/14.
    Accession Number: 20141008-5226.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-427-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Answer to Twin Valley
Answer Deficiency Filing to be effective 1/19/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-506-001.
    Applicants: DeSoto County Generating Company, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Response to Deficiency
Letter to be effective 12/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-717-000; ER15-719-000; ER15-723-000.
    Applicants: ANP Blackstone Energy Company, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 23, 2014 ANP Blackstone Energy
Company, LLC, ANP Bellingham Energy Company, LLC and GDF SUEZ Energy
Marketing NA, Inc. tariff filings.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-843-001.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): KU Concurrence Errata
PJM 3140 to be effective 11/10/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-844-001.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): LGE Concurrence Errata
PJM 3140 to be effective 11/10/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-963-000.
    Applicants: Evraz Claymont Steel, Inc.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of Evraz Claymont Steel, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/2/15.
    Accession Number: 20150203-0001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/23/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-968-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-2-
4_TSGT-Ray Lewis-O&M Agrmt-345-0.0.0 to be effective 4/4/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-969-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): First
Revised Service Agreement No. 3830; Queue No. Z1-052 to be effective 1/
5/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-970-000.
    Applicants: WM North Broward, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Notice
of Succession to be effective 12/22/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-971-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): NYISO/
TO 205 filing re: National Grid/Village of Boonville SA 2204 to be
effective 1/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-972-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Engineering and Procurement
Service Agreement No. CMP-EP-1-S of Central Maine Power Company.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-973-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Engineering and Procurement
Service Agreement No. CMP-EP-4 of Central Maine Power Company.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-974-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Engineering and Procurement
Service Agreement No. CMP-EP-2 of Central Maine Power Company.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-975-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Termination of Engineering and Procurement
Service Agreement No. CMP-EP-2-S of Central Maine Power Company.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-976-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application to Approve the Reclassification by the
Michigan Public Service Commission of Certain Assets and Include the
Associated Revenue Requirements of Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-977-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2737 ATC-WPSC PCA (James St.) to be effective 4/6/2015 under
ER15-977 Filing Type: 10.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-978-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2738 ATC-WPSC Project Services Agreement to be effective 4/6/
2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-979-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2739 ATC-UPPCO Project Services Agreement to be effective 4/6/
2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-980-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2740 ATC-Wisconsin Electric FCA (Enbridge) to be effective 4/
6/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-981-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2741 ATC-Wisconsin Electric Project Services Agreement to be
effective 4/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-982-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2742 ATC-Wisconsin Power and Light FCA (Enbridge) to be
effective 4/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-983-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2743 ATC-Wisconsin Power and Light PCA (Didion) to be
effective 4/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-984-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2744 ATC-Wisconsin Power and Light PCA (Dickinson) to be
effective 4/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-985-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2745 ATC-Wisconsin Power and Light PSA to be effective 4/6/
2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-986-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2746 ATC-Madison Gas and Electric PCA (Huiskamp) to be
effective 4/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-987-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Systems, Incorporated.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
02-04_SA 2747 ATC-Madison Gas and Electric PSA to be effective 4/6/
2015.
    Filed Date: 2/4/15.
    Accession Number: 20150204-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/25/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:
    Docket Numbers: QF15-373-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Industries.
    Description: Form 556 of Sierra Pacific Industries.
    Filed Date: 1/27/15.
    Accession Number: 20150127-5325.
    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02701 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

04/28/2008 10:39 AM

To

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

next set of emails for Pb RIA docket

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:38 AM -----

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

12/14/2007 08:49 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

Re: Kathy, are there materials to distribute for tomorrow's Pb NAAQS RIA call?

Heidi -- I apologize --- they're coming -- I'm still incorporating edits I got from people yesterday afternoon.  Successive holiday parties here impeded my progress yesterday and Wed...hopefully within an hour I'll get it out.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 12/13/2007 04:46 PM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Kathy, are there materials to distribute for tomorrow's Pb NAAQS RIA call?

Hi Kathy,

Just checking in - a couple of interagency discussion invitees asked whether there are materials for the Friday conversation on Pb NAAQS RIA.

Thanks,

heidi

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:38 AM -----

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

12/14/2007 10:06 AM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

materials for Pb NAAQS RIA call at 2 today

Heidi -- sorry for the delay.  Here you go..

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

----- Forwarded by Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/28/2008 10:38 AM -----

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

12/14/2007 01:45 PM

To

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

RE: materials for Pb NAAQS RIA call at 2 today

I'm sorry -- I was out at a lunch -- it's 541-4376.  I didn't realize you didn't get that from Margaret.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 12/14/2007 11:35 AM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: materials for Pb NAAQS RIA call at 2 today

Do you have call-in information that I can share with the group?

Thanks Kathy,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:06 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Subject: materials for Pb NAAQS RIA call at 2 today

Heidi -- sorry for the delay.  Here you go..

(See attached file: Pb NAAQS Getting to the emissions to air quality

relationships 12-14-07.ppt)

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24560-24561]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9786]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Electric Vehicle
Safety Technical Symposium

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of public symposium.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
announcing a technical symposium that will be held in Washington, DC on
May 18, 2012 to discuss safety considerations for electric vehicles
powered by lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries. The symposium will include
brief NHTSA presentations outlining current agency research and
activities related to Li-ion batteries and Li-ion battery-powered
vehicles, as well as presentations by the Department of Energy,
voluntary standards bodies, and automotive and battery manufacturers.
Information on the date, time, location, and framework for this public
event is included in this notice. Because of space limitations,
registration by May 11, 2012 is highly recommended. There are no fees
to register or to attend this event.

DATES: The symposium will be held on May 18, 2012, at the location
indicated in the ADDRESSES section below. The symposium will start at
8:30 a.m. and is scheduled to continue until 4:30 p.m., local time.
However, the symposium will continue beyond 4:30 p.m. if the presiding
official believes that allowing the discussion to extend beyond that
time would be beneficial. If you plan to attend the technical
symposium, please follow the registration process described under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by May 11, 2012. Depending on the available
space, registration may be accepted after that date.

ADDRESSES: The May 18, 2012 symposium will be held in the West Atrium
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Registration. The meeting will be open to the
public and will be physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Due to space limitations, pre-registration is highly recommended. If
you would like to attend the symposium, please register by the date
specified under the DATES section above, by visiting http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/events/register.cfm and filling out the on-line
form provided. To register, you will be required to provide your first
and last name and an email address, and indicate whether you are a U.S.
citizen. Please specify any requests for sign language interpretation,
other auxiliary aids, or other reasonable accommodation by contacting
Mr. Chris Morris, whose contact information is listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, no later than May 11, 2012. Last minute requests
will be accepted, but may be impossible to fulfill.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Charlie
Case, NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, telephone (202) 366-
5319, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For logistical issues: Mr. Chris Morris, NHTSA Office of Vehicle
Safety, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) is hosting a public technical symposium to
discuss regulatory and safety considerations for lithium-ion (Li-ion)
battery-powered vehicles.
    Electric vehicles show great promise as an innovative and fuel-
efficient option for American drivers. Significant research and other
activities related to the safety of these vehicles are ongoing by
NHTSA, the Department of Energy (DOE), vehicle and battery
manufacturers, standards organizations, and others. The purpose of this
symposium is to bring together relevant stakeholders to share
information on the status of safety activities related to the use of
Li-ion batteries in vehicles designed for on-road use.
    In recognition of the growth in the vehicle segment, NHTSA has been
focusing increased attention on Li-ion battery safety. For example, the
agency has been working with vehicle manufacturers to ensure they have
appropriate post-crash protocols. Earlier this year, with the
assistance of the National Fire Protection Association, DOE, and
others, NHTSA issued interim guidance for consumers, emergency
responders, and tow truck operators. This guidance was aimed at
increasing awareness about the specific attributes related to Li-ion
battery-powered vehicles and at identifying appropriate safety measures
to be used in the event of a crash involving such a vehicle.
    At the same time, NHTSA is actively involved in developing a body
of research regarding electric vehicle safety. The agency is assessing
the performance and functional requirements of battery storage systems.
NHTSA is conducting a detailed Failure Analysis approach to help the
agency to identify the problems that can occur in Li-ion batteries and
the severity of their occurrence. This will help NHTSA prioritize its
research and potential rulemaking in this area.
    Technical Symposium Agenda. NHTSA expects that the following topics
will be part of the symposium: NHTSA's ongoing research on Li-ion
battery safety; DOE's perspective on Li-ion battery safety; an overview
of industry voluntary standards applicable to Li-ion battery-powered
vehicles; emergency response procedures relevant to Li-ion battery-
powered vehicles; and other safety issues, including those related to
battery management systems, battery design parameters, and safety
testing.
    Technical Symposium Procedures and Logistics. NHTSA will conduct
the symposium informally. The symposium will include brief
presentations from NHTSA, DOE, voluntary standards bodies, and
automotive and battery manufacturers. There will be opportunities for
attendees to ask questions of NHTSA and of the technical presenters.
    To attend this symposium, please follow the registration process
described under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the date specified
under the DATES section. Pre-registration is highly recommended because
of security and space limitation reasons. Depending on the available
space, late registration may be accepted. After registration, NHTSA
will send attendees follow-up

information regarding symposium day logistics (i.e., directions to the
building, parking accommodations, etc.).
    For security purposes, government-issued photo identification is
required to enter the Department of Transportation building. Non-U.S.
citizens will be required to show passports. To allow sufficient time
to clear security and enter the building, NHTSA recommends that
symposium participants arrive 30 to 60 minutes prior to the start of
the event.

    Issued on: April 18, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-9786 Filed 4-19-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P