[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31728-31729]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-82]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57878; File No. SR-OPRA-2008-01]

Options Price Reporting Authority; Order Approving an Amendment
to the Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and
Quotation Information To Adopt New Form of Vendor Affiliate Agreement

May 28, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On March 3, 2008, the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'')
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\2\ an amendment to the Plan for
Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale Reports and Quotation
Information (``OPRA Plan'').\3\ The proposed OPRA Plan amendment would
adopt a new form of ``Vendor Affiliate Agreement'' that may be used by
an affiliate of an OPRA ``Vendor'' that wants also to become a Vendor.
OPRA's Fee Schedule would be modified to state that OPRA will waive its
``Redistribution Fee'' for all affiliates in a corporate family with
which OPRA agrees to Vendor Affiliate Agreements. The proposed OPRA
Plan amendment was published for comment in the Federal Register on
March 26, 2008.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters in
response to the Notice. On

May 16, 2008, OPRA submitted a revised version of Exhibit I to its
proposed Plan Amendment.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \2\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \3\ The OPRA Plan is a national market system plan approved by
the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Act and Rule 608
thereunder. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 17638 (March 18,
1981), 22 S.E.C. Docket 484 (March 31, 1981). The full text of the
OPRA Plan is available at http://www.opradata.com.
    The OPRA Plan provides for the collection and dissemination of
last sale and quotation information on options that are traded on
the participant exchanges. The seven participants to the OPRA Plan
are the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Boston Stock Exchange,
Inc., the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, the
International Securities Exchange, Inc., the NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC, the NYSE Arca, Inc., and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57530 (March 19,
2008), 73 FR 16078 (``Notice'').
    \5\ The revised Exhibit I made merely technical changes to the
original Exhibit I and therefore need not be published for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This order approves the proposed OPRA Plan amendment.

II. Description of the Proposal

    OPRA's current form of Vendor Agreement authorizes only the Vendor
itself, and not any of its affiliates, to disseminate OPRA Data. As a
matter of policy, OPRA has permitted Vendors to disseminate OPRA Data
through wholly-owned subsidiaries. However, OPRA has not permitted
Vendors to disseminate OPRA Data through other affiliates that have not
themselves signed Vendor Agreements with OPRA. Many Vendors conduct
business through corporate families, for a variety of reasons. OPRA
requires each OPRA Vendor to pay a monthly ``Redistribution Fee,'' \6\
and OPRA has from time to time received requests to alleviate the
financial consequence that OPRA's current policy imposes on some Vendor
families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OPRA's Redistribution Fee is currently $650/month for
``Internet service only'' Vendors, and $1,500/month for all other
Vendors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, OPRA is proposing to amend its Fee Schedule to provide
that OPRA will waive its Redistribution Fee for Vendor affiliates that
themselves become Vendors pursuant to ``Vendor Affiliate Agreements,''
and is proposing to adopt a new form of ``Vendor Affiliate Agreement.''
In effect, the form of Vendor Affiliate Agreement is a ``short form''
Vendor Agreement that can be signed by an additional member of a
Vendor's corporate family. The proposed form would require the
additional member of a corporate family to acknowledge that it is
subject to and bound by the terms of the ``lead'' Vendor's Vendor
Agreement just as if it had signed the Agreement itself. The proposed
form is designed so that it can be used by affiliates of a current OPRA
Vendor without any need for the current Vendor to sign a new Vendor
Agreement.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ However, the current Vendor (or a new ``lead'' Vendor) would
be required to identify its affiliate(s) that will sign Vendor
Affiliate Agreements in its ``Description of Vendor's Service''--
Exhibit A to its Vendor Agreement--as in effect from time to time.
The lead Vendor would also be required to describe the dissemination
of OPRA Data by such affiliate(s) in its Exhibit A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed OPRA
Plan amendment is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder.\8\ Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposed OPRA Plan amendment is consistent with section 11A of
the Act \9\ and Rule 608 thereunder \10\ in that it is appropriate in
the public interest, for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, and to remove impediments to,
and perfect the mechanism of, a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed OPRA Plan Amendment, the
Commission has considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OPRA's Vendor Agreement governs the terms and conditions under
which vendors redistribute options market data to subscribers and other
end users of the information. The Commission finds that OPRA's proposal
to adopt a new form of Vendor Affiliate Agreement and to waive its
Redistribution Fee for an affiliate of an OPRA Vendor should facilitate
distribution of OPRA Data through OPRA Vendors who conduct business
within a corporate family. Therefore, the Commission believes that
OPRA's proposal is consistent with section 11A of the Act \11\ and the
Rule 608 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 11A of the Act,\13\
and Rule 608 thereunder,\14\ that the proposed OPRA Plan amendment (SR-
OPRA-2008-01) be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.608.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-12315 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 10490]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR12-12-001]

Arcadia Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 13, 2012, Arcadia Gas Storage, LLC
filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions to further define the
priority of service of its proposed Enhanced Authorized Overrun
Service.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate 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 on or before the date as indicated below. 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 7 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 27, 2012.

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4078 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 40255]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF23-6-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 8, 2023, Western Area Power Administration
submits tariff filing: eTariff_Corrections_Submitted-20230605 to be
effective 8/7/2023.
    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, 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 on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2023.

    Dated: June 14, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13167 Filed 6-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


   MEMORANDUM

   FROM:	James Warila
   		United States Environmental Protection Agency
   		Office of Air and Radiation
   		Office of Transportation and Air Quality
   		Assessment and Standards Division

   TO:	Tier 3 Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135

   DATE:	February 28, 2013

RE:   	Statistical Analysis of the Effects of Changing Fuel Properties on CO2
	Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline-Powered Vehicles based on EPAct/V2/E-89
	Test Program Results

The proposed change in test fuel, if finalized, could have implications for the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance programs, as well as the fuel economy labeling program.  Therefore, it is important to characterize the potential impact on CO2 emissions from the change in certification test fuel proposed in this rule.  As outlined in the preamble to the 2017 and Later Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) final rule, if the EPA test fuel used for certification and fuel economy vehicles changes to include ethanol, EPA is committed to address whether the fuel change has a potential to affect the stringency of Greenhouse Gas and CAFE standards.   As a result, we used data from the EPAct Program to examine the effects of changing fuel properties on CO2 emissions.

Based on results from Phase 3 of the EPAct Program, we performed a statistical analysis of the effects of five fuel properties on the CO2 emissions of 15 late-model light-duty vehicles.  To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive study of fuel effects of CO2 emissions available.

The project was conducted as a controlled experiment, in which the design can be characterized as "randomized block with repeated measures", in which vehicles are treated as blocks and fuel properties as "treatments."  A statistically optimal study design was developed to represent variation in five fuel properties: ethanol volume (%), aromatic content (%), RVP (psi), T50 (°F) and T90 (°F).  These five parameters were selected based on previous studies as having potential to affect exhaust emissions, and were included in the design at the levels shown in Table 1.   A critical feature of the study design is that the properties of the test fuels are assigned to span the ranges of in-use fuel properties, with the intent of providing a basis for the development of statistical models capable of predicting emissions for the majority of in-use fuels.  Following a process in which statistical power, fuel-blending feasibility and budget were balanced, the final design included 27 test fuels.

A set of 15 test vehicles, all in model year 2008, with the majority certified to Tier-2/Bin-5 standards, was selected on the basis of sales levels, vehicle and engine sizes, and representation of manufacturers.  Emissions were measured on the LA92 test cycle at a nominal temperature of 75°F. Emissions measured include carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), methane (CH4), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5).  Following the completion of data collection, in June 2010, construction of the dataset involved intensive evaluation and quality assurance.

The conduction and analysis of the EPAct Phase-3 project are discussed in greater detail in the EPA project Report.

Table 1.  Levels assigned to Experimental Factors (Fuel parameters) for the Phase-3 EPAct program.
Factor
                                  No. Levels
                                    Levels

Low
                                    Middle
High
Ethanol (%)
                                       4
                                       0
                                    10, 15
                                      20
Aromatics
                                       2
                                      15

                                      35
RVP (psi)
                                       2
                                       7

                                      10
T50 (°F)
                                       5
                                      150
                                 165, 190, 220
                                      240
T90 (°F)
                                       3
                                      300
                                      325
                                      340
Analysis
Each of the vehicles was measured on each of the 27 fuels, with replication.  On most vehicle fuel combinations two replicates were performed, whereas on some combinations, 3 replicates were performed. The total dataset includes 956 observations.  More details on the vehicles, fuels, and test procedures can be found in the program report.

For purposes of this analysis, we used cycle composites for the LA92 results. Results for the 3 phases of the cycle (cold start, hot running and hot start) were averaged in the same manner as a composite calculated on the FTP cycle.
Data Review
Figure 1 shows a summary of the entire dataset as the common logarithm of the cycle composites, presented by vehicle and fuel. As expected, measurements are consistent and precise for each vehicle, with variability among vehicles considerably larger than variability within vehicles. Overall, the measurements range from 290 to 600 g CO2/mi.

 Figure 1.  Common logarithms of CO2 measurements (Composites on LA92 cycle).

As a next step, we averaged the data across all levels of each of the fuel properties in turn, and by vehicle, as shown in Figure 2 through Figure 6.  The plots make it clear that, at the scales shown, visible effects are apparent only for aromatics.  Effects may be present for the other properties, but would be too small to be visible at the scale shown.

Figure 2.  CO2 (Composite): Results averaged by four levels of ethanol and by vehicle.

Figure 3.  CO2 (Composite): Results averaged by two levels of aromatics and by vehicle.

Figure 4. CO2 (Composite): Results averaged by two levels of RVP and by vehicle.

Figure 5.  CO2 (Composite): Results averaged by five levels of T50 and by vehicle.

Figure 6.  CO2 (Composite): Results averaged by three levels of T90 and by vehicle.

In addition, we investigated whether graphing the results might indicate the possibility of an interaction effect between aromatics and ethanol.  In this case we averaged the data by both its four ethanol and two aromatics levels and plotted the means, as shown in Figure 7.  In this plot we show trends against aromatics with a different series for each ethanol level. As in Figure 3, the effect of aromatics is visible, but it is not apparent that the aromatics effect differs systematically by ethanol level.

    Figure 7.  CO2 (Composite):  Emissions vs. Aromatics by Ethanol Level.

Statistical Modeling
We followed up on the graphical presentation of the data by performing statistical modeling.

Response variable:  As mentioned above, the response variable was CO2 emissions, as the cycle composite on the LA92 cycle.  Unlike other emissions, such as NOx, PM or NMOG, it was not necessary to perform a natural log transformation of the data before modeling, as the CO2 results are approximately normally distributed with respect to the fuel properties.

Design Model:  The properties of the test fuels form a five-dimensional study design optimized to estimate emissions as efficiently as possible for set of pre-specified model terms. These terms include a linear term for each of the five fuel properties, two squared terms for ethanol and T50, and four interaction terms, for combinations of ethanol with each of the remaining four properties.  A model including this set of 11 terms is shown in Equation 1.

                                                                     Equation 1

The model including all 11 terms will be referred to as a "full model," indicating that it contains all available candidate terms.

Standardization:  Prior to modeling, all terms were "standardized."  That is, each fuel property measurement was "centered" by subtracting its mean (for all measurements), and then "scaled" by dividing the difference by its corresponding standard deviation (for all measurements).  For the five linear terms, this process was performed using individual fuel property measurements. The resulting "Z score" has a mean of 0.0 and a standard deviation of 1.0.  For 2[nd]  - order terms, cross products terms were constructed not from the original measurements, but rather from the Z scores for the applicable linear terms.  Then the standardization process was repeated, after calculating the means and standard deviations of the cross products of the Z scores. Thus, these "two-stage" standardized values for the 2[nd]-order terms will be referred to using the notation "ZZ."  For example, the term for the etOHxetOH quadratic term is notated as ZZee, and that for the etOHxAromatics interaction as ZZea. This process is performed to neutralize any remaining correlations among terms, particularly between linear effects and corresponding 2[nd]-order terms, and is described in greater detail in section 2.3.1 of the EPAct analysis report.   Thus the models actually fit are represented in Equation 2, in which each term corresponds to its counterpart in Equation 1.

                                                                     Equation 2

Model Fitting:  Starting with a "full model" including all 11 terms in Equation 2, we performed model fitting to identify and remove terms not contributing to the fit of the model to the dataset.  This process was performed by backwards elimination.  In the first step, after fitting the full model, any terms with p-values for their Type-III tests greater than 0.10 were removed and the model refit without them.  The model with fewer terms is termed a "reduced model," which is said to be "nested" in the full model. Then, as a test of goodness of fit between the two models, a likelihood ratio test was performed.  The test statistic was the difference in the -2 log likelihood statistics between the nested and full models (known as the "reference model" for purposes of the test). This statistic is assumed to follow a χ[2] distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the number of parameters between the two models. If the test gave a p-value greater than 0.10, the null hypothesis of no difference in fit between the two models was retained, and the term(s) under consideration were dropped in subsequent model-fitting steps, under the assumption that they did not make a statistically significant improvement in the model fit. On the other hand, if the p-value was < 0.10, the null hypothesis was dropped, and one or more of the term(s) would be retained in the model, pending successive fitting steps.  In this circumstance, one or more of the terms is assumed to make a statistically significant improvement in model fit.

If terms dropped in the first step are not retained, the "reduced model" with fewer terms becomes the "reference model" and the process is repeated.  Successive model fitting steps are performed until a significant result is obtained and all remaining terms have p-values < 0.10.
Results
The process is summarized in Table 1 to Table 3.  Table 1 shows the set of reduced models fit. Table 2 shows the results of successive tests fit during the process.  Table 3 shows the coefficients, standard errors and tests of effect for the full model and the reduced model having the best fit to the dataset.

Table 2. Models fit for CO2 (composite): (all models include an intercept term).
Model Term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                                     Full
                                    FM6[1]
                                      FM7
                                      FM8
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      RVP
Zr
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      x

                                 etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                      ●
                                      x

                                 etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  etOH x RVP
ZZer
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                      ●
                                      x

[1] denotes "full minus 6."

Table 3. CO2 (Bag 1): Model Fitting History, starting with the 11-term Full model.
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
                                                                              p
-2lnL
BIC  [1]

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Full
                                                                             12
                                                                       -7591.08
                                                                       -7553.17

FM6
                                                                              6
                                                                       -7582.70
                                                                       -7561.03

                                                                          8.380
                                                                              6
                                                                          0.212
FM7
                                                                              5
                                                                       -7580.88
                                                                       -7561.92

                                                                          1.820
                                                                              1
                                                                          0.177
FM8 [2]
                                                                              4
                                                                       -7578.22
                                                                       -7561.97

                                                                          2.660
                                                                              1
                                                                          0.103

[1] A lower value indicates a better fit.
[2] Best fit with respect to the 11-term design model.

Table 4.  CO2 (Composite): Coefficients  and Tests of Effect for the Full and Reduced Models, with respect to the 11-term design model.
Effect

                                  Full Model

                              Reduced Model (FM8)

Estimate[1]
Std.Err.[1]
d.f.
t-value
Pr> t

                                                                    Estimate[1]
Std.Err.[1]
d.f.
t-value
Pr> t
Intercept

                                                                          433.7
                                                                          25.59
                                                                             15
                                                                          16.95
                                                                       0.000000

                                                                          433.7
                                                                          25.59
                                                                             15
                                                                          16.95
                                                                       0.000000
Ze

                                                                         0.9796
                                                                         0.2043
                                                                            941
                                                                          4.795
                                                                       0.000002

                                                                         0.9877
                                                                         0.1678
                                                                            941
                                                                          5.886
                                                                       0.000000
Za

                                                                          7.784
                                                                         0.1424
                                                                            941
                                                                          54.67
                                                                       0.000000

                                                                          7.766
                                                                         0.1414
                                                                            941
                                                                          54.92
                                                                       0.000000
Zr

                                                                        -0.1993
                                                                         0.1626
                                                                            941
                                                                         -1.225
                                                                           0.22

                                                                         0.8249
                                                                         0.1730
                                                                            941
                                                                          4.768
                                                                       0.000002
Z5

                                                                         0.7546
                                                                         0.2051
                                                                            941
                                                                          3.679
                                                                        0.00025

Z9

                                                                        -0.0243
                                                                         0.1424
                                                                            941
                                                                         -0.170
                                                                           0.86

ZZee

                                                                         0.2269
                                                                         0.2741
                                                                            941
                                                                         0.8276
                                                                           0.41

ZZ55

                                                                        -0.2038
                                                                         0.2053
                                                                            941
                                                                         -0.993
                                                                           0.32

ZZea

                                                                         0.2050
                                                                         0.1393
                                                                            941
                                                                          1.472
                                                                           0.14

ZZer

                                                                        -0.1770
                                                                         0.1421
                                                                            941
                                                                         -1.246
                                                                           0.21

ZZe5

                                                                        -0.0867
                                                                         0.2942
                                                                            941
                                                                         -0.295
                                                                           0.77

ZZe9

                                                                        -0.0459
                                                                         0.1398
                                                                            941
                                                                         -0.328
                                                                           0.74

                                                                          9,822

                                                                          9,821

                                                                             18

                                                                             18

[1] Expressed in units of g/mi per a change in the fuel property of 1.0 standard deviation (g/mi-σ).

Interpretation
 The results presented in Table 3 are presented graphically below in Figure 8, in which the bars represent the magnitude and signs of the coefficients, excluding the intercept (434 g/mi). Error bars on the coefficients represent 90% confidence intervals based on the standard errors shown in the table. The terms dropped from the reduced model are clearly seen as those with error bars spanning 0.0.

Figure 8.  CO2 (Composite): Standardized Model Coefficients for Full and Reduced Models (Error bars represent 90% confidence intervals).

The reduced model is simple, retaining only three linear effects and no 2[nd]-order terms. It contains three linear terms, for ethanol, aromatics and T50, with the values for ethanol and T50 being similar in size, with values of approximately 1.0 g/mi-σ. The term for aromatics is considerably larger, at approximately 8.0 g/mi-σ.

Because, as mentioned above, the fuel properties are "standardized" before model fitting, and because the response variable is CO2 emissions (g/mi), as a composite on the LA92, the coefficients represent a change in CO2 emissions corresponding to changes in the fuel properties of 1.0 standard deviation (σ), as calculated for the fuel matrix used in the study.  In addition, the coefficients represent the effect on the emission rate for each fuel property, as though the remaining properties would be held constant while varying the property under consideration. This assumption is entirely artificial but very useful in assessing the behavior of emissions in relation to changing fuel properties.

An interpretation of each of the terms is provided below:

Ethanol:  The coefficient takes a value of 0.98 g/mi-σ. As the σ for ethanol is 7.9 vol.%, the coefficient indicates an increase of ~0.124 g CO2/mi per % increase in ethanol volume, assuming aromatics and T50 are held constant. For example, with the other two properties constant, we would predict a 1.25 g/mi increase in CO2 from an E10 blend relative to an E0 blend. Note, however, that the change is very small, e.g., an average rate of 350 g/mi on E0 would increase to 351.24 g/mi on E10, which represents an increase of 0.4%.

Aromatics:  This coefficient takes a value of 7.8 g/mi-σ.   The σ for aromatics is 10.0 vol.%.  Thus, the coefficient indicates an increase of 0.78 g CO2/mi per % increase in aromatics volume, assuming ethanol and T50 are held constant.  For example, with the other two properties constant, we would predict a 7.8 g/mi increase in CO2 from a 15% aromatics to one with 25% aromatics.  While larger than the ethanol effect, this change is also small relative to the base level, e.g., an average rate of 350 g/mi on a fuel with 15% aromatics would increase to 357.8 g/mi on a fuel with 25% aromatics, which represents an increase of 2.2%.

T50:   This coefficient takes a value of 0.83 g/mi-σ.  The σ for T50 is 28.6°F.  The coefficient thus indicates an increase of 0.029 g CO2/mi per an increase in T50 of 1.0 F°, assuming ethanol and aromatics are held constant.  For example, with the other two properties held constant, we would predict a 0.88 g/mi increase in CO2 from a fuel with T50 at 220°F relative to a fuel with T50 at 190°F.  An average rate of 350 g/mi on a fuel with T50 at 220°F would increase to 350.88 g/mi on a fuel with T50 at 190°F, which represents an increase of 0.3%.
Conclusion
The analysis of results from the EPAct program indicates that changes in fuel properties are associated with measurable changes in CO2 emissions. In particular, three fuel properties, ethanol, aromatics and T50 are associated with statistically significant changes in CO2 emissions that are, however, small to very small in absolute terms.

Of the three properties, the effect for aromatics is clearly the most important, with the aromatics coefficient 8 times and 9.4 times larger than those for ethanol and T50, respectively (based on the standardized coefficients shown above in Figure 8).

While it is useful to consider the coefficients in isolation, it is critical to remember that in practice the fuel properties cannot be cleanly separated.  Thus, when applying the models, it is necessary to account for the effects of multiple properties varying simultaneously.

For example, while noting that the ethanol coefficient predicts that a shift from E0 to E10 blends would result in a small increase in CO2 emissions, accounting for simultaneous decreases in aromatics (and possibly T50) due to dilution and/or octane match-blending by refiners, we would expect the aromatics effect would be opposite the ethanol effect and of an equal or greater magnitude.  For example, the model suggests that the increase in CO2 due to an increase in ethanol from 0 to 10 vol% (1.25 g/mi CO2 increase) would be offset by a reduction in aromatics of 1.6 vol% (1.25 g/mi CO2 decrease), not accounting for potential changes in T50.  Stated differently, the model predicts that a gasoline with 0 vol% ethanol and 25 vol% aromatics would have the same CO2 emissions as a fuel with 10 vol% ethanol and 23.4 vol% aromatics.

In general, we conclude that the data and analysis support a conclusion that, aside from improbable cases in which ethanol and aromatics increase simultaneously, the addition of ethanol to gasoline is expected to have no appreciable effects on CO2 emissions.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7449]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02679]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-02-2021-2033; FRL-9475-01-R2]

Proposed CERCLA Settlement Agreement for the Pierson's Creek
Superfund Site, City of Newark, Essex County, New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''),
notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA''), Region 2, of a proposed bona fide prospective purchaser
agreement (``Agreement'') with 429 Delancy Associates, L.L.C. (``429
Delancy'') for the Pierson's Creek Superfund Site (``Site''), located
in the City of Newark, Essex County, New Jersey. Under the proposed
Agreement, 429 Delancy agrees to perform a non-time critical removal
action to remove mercury-contaminated sediments on 429 Delancy's
property adjacent to Pierson's Creek, which flows through its property,
and to reimburse EPA for costs incurred in overseeing this work. The
property is located at 429 Delancy Street, City of Newark, Essex
County, New Jersey, designated as Block 5042, Lot 02 within the
Pierson's Creek Superfund Site.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Comments can be sent via email to Amelia Wagner at
[email protected]. Comments should reference the Pierson's Creek
Superfund Site, CERCLA Settlement Agreement, Index No. CERCLA-02-2021-
2033. The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at
this website: https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/02/638500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Wagner, Attorney, Office of
Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Email:
[email protected]. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For thirty (30) days following the date of
publication of this document, EPA will receive written comments
relating to the proposed Agreement. EPA will consider all comments
received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed
Agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that
indicate that the proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or
inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection online and/or at EPA Region 2, 290 Broadway, New
York, New York 10007-1866.

Pasquale Evangelista,
Director, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2022-02679 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 64499]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-151-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Nov & Dec Auction 2012 to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-152-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 10/11/12 Negotiated Rates--Freepoint Commodiites (RTS)
to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-153-000.
    Applicants: Monroe Gas Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Monroe Gas Storage Tariff Modification to be effective
10/11/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-154-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: City of Salem, IL Negotiated Rate Filing to be
effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/12.
    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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-955-001.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River T.
    Description: MRT Rate Case Compliance Filing for 9-28-12 Order to
be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121011-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/23/12.
    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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 (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated October 12, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25799 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54287-54291]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21203]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0070]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and
Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for extension of a
currently approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
invites public comments about our intention to request approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of a
currently approved information collection. Before a Federal agency can
collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval
from OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This
document describes NHTSA's information collection for incident
reporting requirements for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level 2
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). NHTSA recently requested
emergency review of its request for approval of this information
collection and received a six-month approval. NHTSA now intends to
follow the normal clearance procedures and request OMB's approval for a
three-year extension of this currently approved information collection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-
2021-0070 through any of the following methods:
     Electronic submissions: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets via internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Jeff Eyres, Office of Chief Counsel,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before an agency submits a proposed
collection of information to OMB for approval (including a request for
an extension of a currently approved collection), it must first publish
a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period
and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation (5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask
for public comment on the following: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) how to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA
asks for public comments on the following proposed extension of a
currently approved collection of information, for which the agency is
seeking approval from OMB.
    Title: Incident Reporting for Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and
Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0754.
    Form Number(s): Form 1612.
    Type of Request: Approval of an extension of a currently approved
collection of information.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The currently approved
information collection request (ICR) for which NHTSA intends to request
an extension requires certain manufacturers of motor vehicles and
equipment and operators of motor vehicles to submit incident reports
for certain crashes involving Automated Driving Systems (ADS) and Level
2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). These crash reporting
obligations are set forth in NHTSA's Standing General Order 2021-01
(General Order), which requires those manufacturers and operators named
in and served with the General Order to report crashes that meet
specified criteria to NHTSA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A copy of the General Order is available on NHTSA's website
at https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/standing-general-order-crash-reporting-levels-driving-automation-2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the General Order requires the named manufacturers
and operators (the reporting entities) to submit reports if they
receive notice of certain crashes involving an ADS or Level 2 ADAS
equipped vehicle that

occur on publicly accessible roads in the United States. To be
reportable, the vehicle, the ADS, or the Level 2 ADAS must have been
manufactured by the reporting entity or the vehicle must have been
operated by a reporting entity at the time of the crash, and the ADS or
Level 2 ADAS must have been engaged at the time of or immediately
before (<=30 seconds) the crash. The reporting obligations are limited
to those entities named in and served with the General Order. The
General Order imposes no reporting obligations on any other companies
and likewise imposes no reporting obligations on any individual
consumers.
    In the event of a reportable crash, the General Order requires the
reporting entity to submit an incident report electronically to NHTSA.
The required report includes basic information sufficient for NHTSA to
identify those crashes warranting follow-up. Crashes involving ADS or
Level 2 ADAS equipped vehicles that meet specified criteria must be
reported within one calendar day after the reporting entity receives
notice of the crash, and other crashes involving ADS equipped vehicles
must be reported on a monthly basis. The reporting obligations in the
General Order are specific to these crashes, which are a primary source
of information regarding potential defects in ADS or Level 2 ADAS.
    Under Request No. 1 of the General Order, a reporting entity must
report any crash involving an ADS or Level 2 ADAS equipped vehicle that
results in any individual being transported to a hospital for medical
treatment, a fatality, a vehicle tow-away, or an air bag deployment or
involves a vulnerable road user. Under these circumstances, the
reporting entity must submit a report within one day after the
reporting entity receives notice of the crash, and an updated report is
due 10 days after receiving notice.
    The 10-day report utilizes the same form and requests the same
information as the one-day report. The 10-day report is a required
follow up to the one-day report because it is anticipated that, for
some of these reportable crashes, the reporting entity will have
minimal information on the day after it first receives notice. The
General Order therefore requires both the one-day report, to give the
agency prompt notice of a crash that may justify immediate follow up,
and the 10-day report, to give the reporting entity more time to gather
information required by the incident report form. No additional or
incremental information is required for the 10-day report.
    Separately, under Request No. 2 of the General Order, a reporting
entity must report any crash involving an ADS equipped vehicle that
does not meet the previous criteria but nonetheless involves personal
injury or property damage on the fifteenth day of the month after the
reporting entity receives notice of the crash. Under Request No. 3 of
the General Order, a reporting entity that receives new material or
materially different information regarding a crash previously reported
to NHTSA is required to file an updated report the following month.
Finally, under Request No. 4 of the General Order, a reporting entity
that has no new or updated crash reports under Request No. 2 or Request
No. 3 for a given month must file a report stating so on the fifteenth
day of the following month. The monthly reports and updated reports
required under Request No. 2, Request No. 3, and Request No. 4 utilize
the same form and request the same information as the one-day reports
required under Request No. 1.
    This information collection provides NHTSA with information it
needs to carry out its statutory mandate to protect the public against
unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design,
construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident.
    NHTSA recently requested and received emergency review and approval
of this information collection. NHTSA submitted the request on June 29,
2021. On June 30, 2021, OMB granted NHTSA a six-month approval for this
information collection and assigned this information collection the OMB
control number 2127-0754. NHTSA is publishing this document to seek an
extension of this information collection.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information

    Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended
(the Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, NHTSA is charged with
authority ``to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries
resulting from traffic accidents.'' To carry out this statutory
mandate, NHTSA has broad information gathering authority, including
authority to obtain information on vehicle crashes, potential defects
related to motor vehicle safety, and compliance with legal requirements
to timely identify and conduct recalls for safety defects. 49 U.S.C.
30166(e), (g), 30118-30120; 49 CFR part 510.
    NHTSA's statutory mandate includes the exercise of its authority to
proactively ensure that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment,
including those with novel technologies, perform in ways that protect
the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of
the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and
against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident. 49 U.S.C.
30102. Both ADS and ADAS are ``motor vehicle equipment'' subject to the
requirements of the Safety Act. Given the rapid evolution of these
technologies and increasing testing of new technologies and features on
publicly accessible roads, it is critical for NHTSA to exercise its
oversight over potential safety defects in vehicles operating with ADS
and Level 2 ADAS. The Safety Act is preventive, and the identification
of safety defects does not and should not wait for injuries or deaths
to occur.
    ADS and ADAS are new technologies that fundamentally alter the task
of driving a motor vehicle. Crashes involving vehicles equipped with
these technologies have resulted in multiple fatalities and serious
injuries, and NHTSA anticipates that the number of these crashes will
continue to grow in the near future given the increased number of these
vehicles on the road and the increased number of vehicle and equipment
manufacturers in the market. The General Order provides the agency with
critical and timely safety data, which assists the agency in
identifying potential safety issues resulting from the operation of
advanced technologies on public roads. Access to this crash data may
show whether there are common patterns in vehicle crashes or systematic
problems with specific vehicles or systems, any of which may reflect a
potential safety defect.
    NHTSA intends to evaluate whether specific manufacturers (including
manufacturers of prototype vehicles and equipment) are meeting their
statutory obligations to ensure that their vehicles and equipment are
free of defects that pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety,
or are recalled if such a safety defect is identified. NHTSA's
oversight of potential safety defects in vehicles operating on publicly
accessible roads using ADS or Level 2 ADAS requires that NHTSA have
timely information on incidents involving those vehicles. In carrying
out the Safety Act, NHTSA may ``require, by general or special order,
any person to file reports or answers to specific questions.'' 49
U.S.C. 30166(g)(1)(A).
    Affected Public: Vehicle and equipment manufacturers and operators

of ADS or Level 2 ADAS equipped vehicles.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 110.
    Frequency: Monthly and on occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,745 hours.
    To estimate the burden associated with this information collection,
NHTSA separated the requirements of the General Order into seven
components: (1) Incident reports involving Level 2 ADAS that must be
submitted within one business day; (2) updates to incident reports
involving Level 2 ADAS that must be submitted within ten days; (3)
incident reports involving ADS that must be submitted within one
business day; (4) updates to incident reports involving ADS that must
be submitted within ten days; (5) monthly reports; (6) training
employees on the requirements; and (7) time to set up an account to
submit the reports. The burden associated with categories (6) and (7)
are one-time start-up burdens that will be incurred during the proposed
extension only to the extent that new reporting entities are added to
the General Order during this period. For the 108 reporting entities
currently named in the General Order, this burden has already been and
was accounted for under the currently approved information collection
request.
    The estimated number of respondents consists of the number of
reporting entities. NHTSA estimates that there will be an average of
110 reporting entities during each year of the proposed extension.
Currently, there are 108 reporting entities named in the General Order.
NHTSA believes that additional reporting entities will be added to the
General Order during the proposed extension as new companies enter the
market and begin developing and manufacturing ADS and ADAS technology
and vehicles equipped with these technologies. NHTSA also believes that
some existing reporting entities will be removed from the General Order
due to the cessation of operations or market consolidation.
    Incident reports involving Level 2 ADAS that must be submitted
within one business day. To estimate the burden associated with
submitting Level 2 ADAS crash reports, NHTSA first looked to the
category of crashes that must be reported. As explained above, the
General Order only requires reporting of Level 2 ADAS crashes when (1)
the crash occurred on a publicly accessible road in the United States
(including any of its territories); (2) the Level 2 ADAS was engaged at
any time during the period from 30 seconds immediately prior to the
commencement of the crash through the conclusion of the crash; and (3)
the crash resulted in any individual being transported to a hospital
for medical treatment, a fatality, a vehicle tow-away, an air bag
deployment, or involved a vulnerable road user.\2\ These crashes must
be reported within one business day. Based on the number of
manufacturers that manufacture vehicles equipped with Level 2 ADAS
systems, NHTSA estimates that it will receive responses from 20
respondents reporting Level 2 ADAS crashes each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``vulnerable road user'' is defined in the General Order
to mean and include ``any person who is not an occupant of a motor
vehicle with more than three wheels. This definition includes, but
is not limited to, pedestrians, persons traveling in wheelchairs,
bicyclists, motorcyclists, and riders or occupants of other
transport vehicles that are not motor vehicles, such as all-terrain
vehicles and tractors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, after evaluating information available to the agency
regarding the number of Level 2 ADAS crashes and the number of vehicles
equipped with Level 2 ADAS, NHTSA estimates that it will receive, on
average, 3,400 Level 2 ADAS crash reports each year. NHTSA believes
this is a high-end estimate and will refine this estimate after seeking
public comment. NHTSA expects that the number of crash reports
submitted by each respondent will vary significantly, with some
manufacturers submitting many more reports than others. However, on
average, NHTSA estimates that each respondent will submit, on average
170 crash reports per year. NHTSA estimates that it will take
respondents approximately 2 hours to compile and submit each crash
report. Therefore, NHTSA estimates the total annual burden hours for
submitting Level 2 ADAS crash reports to be 340 hours per manufacturer
(2 hours x 170 crash reports) and 6,800 hours for all manufacturers
(340 hours x 20 manufacturers).
    Updates to incident reports involving Level 2 ADAS that must be
submitted within ten days. In addition to submitting information on
certain Level 2 ADAS crashes within one day, manufacturers must also
submit updated information within ten days. NHTSA estimates that
updating the crash reports will take approximately 1 hour per report.
Therefore, NHTSA estimates that it will take each manufacturer
approximately 170 hours each year to submit updated Level 2 ADAS crash
reports (1 hour x 170 crash reports) and 3,400 hours for all Level 2
ADAS manufacturers (170 hours x 20 manufacturers).
    Incident reports involving ADS that must be submitted within one
business day. To estimate the number of one-day ADS crash reports NHTSA
will receive in each year, NHTSA looked at the number of ADS crashes
reported to California.\3\ There were 105 ADS crashes reported to
California in 2019.\4\ NHTSA believes that it is reasonable to assume
that about half of all ADS testing in the United States is occurring in
California. Therefore, NHTSA expects that there will be approximately
200 ADS crashes in a year that manufacturers and operators will be
required to report to NHTSA. Some of these crashes will be required to
be submitted within one day and the rest will be required to be
submitted on a monthly basis. The requirements for when ADS crashes
must be reported within one day are the same as for Level 2 ADAS
crashes: (1) The crash occurred on a publicly accessible road in the
United States (including any of its territories); (2) the ADS was
engaged at any time during the period from 30 seconds immediately prior
to the commencement of the crash through the conclusion of the crash;
and (3) the crash resulted in any individual being transported to a
hospital for medical treatment, a fatality, a vehicle tow-away, or an
air bag deployment or involves a vulnerable road user.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/autonomous-vehicles/autonomous-vehicle-collision-reports/.
    \4\ NHTSA chose to use the 2019 data instead of using data from
2020 or an average of the two years because of the impact of the
COVID-19 health emergency on ADS operations. We note that this is
overinclusive because reports are only due to NHTSA when the ADS was
in operation shortly before or during the crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on NHTSA's review of the California crash reports, NHTSA
believes that about half of the ADS crashes will be submitted in
monthly reports, with the other half of crashes being submitted within
one day. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that 100 ADS crash reports a year
will be submitted within one day. NHTSA estimates that each ADS crash
report will take 2 hours to complete and submit, including the time to
submit updated reports. Therefore, NHTSA estimates the burden per
respondent to be 2 hours (1 crash report x 2 hours) and 200 hours for
all respondents (100 ADS crash reports x 2 hours).
    Updates to incident reports involving ADS that must be submitted
within ten days. In addition to submitting information on certain ADS
crashes within one day, manufacturers and operators must also submit
updated information within ten days. NHTSA

estimates that updating the crash reports will take approximately 1
hour per report. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that it will take each
manufacturer approximately 1 hour each year to submit updated ADS crash
reports and 100 hours for all ADS manufacturers and operators (1 hour x
100 crash reports).
    Monthly reports. This information collection requires respondents
to submit monthly reports. ADS manufacturers and operators must report
crashes in these monthly reports that are reportable but were not
required to be submitted within one day. Additionally, both ADS
manufacturers and operators and ADAS manufacturers will be required to
submit information in monthly reports if they receive new material or
materially different information about crashes for which the respondent
already submitted reports (via one-day reports, 10-day update reports,
or prior monthly reports). Further, as explained above, manufacturers
and operators of ADS-equipped vehicles and Level 2 ADAS vehicles are
required to submit monthly reports even when they do not have any new
or updated crash reports under Request No. 2 or Request No. 3 to
submit. If they do not have any reportable information under Requests
Nos. 2 or 3, their monthly report is a simple certification. To
estimate the burden of monthly reports, NHTSA considered the burden for
monthly reports with initial ADS crash reports, monthly reports with
updates to previously submitted crash reports, and those with
certifications of no reportable information. NHTSA estimates there will
be 110 Level 2 ADAS and ADS vehicle manufacturers and operators that
will be required to submit monthly reports each year, for a total of
1,320 monthly reports annually.
    NHTSA estimates that the burden for preparing and submitting
monthly reports will vary depending on whether the monthly report
includes no reportable information, new reportable information, or
updates to previously submitted information. Some of these respondents
may be required to submit only information about ADS crashes or Level 2
ADAS crashes and some may be required to submit information about both
types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that because ADS equipped vehicles
are often operated in small, controlled fleets, the reporting entities
will readily know whether there have been any crashes that must be
reported to NHTSA. Level 2 ADAS vehicles, however, are typically
produced by large manufacturers and operated by consumers. Therefore,
NHTSA estimates that each monthly report submitted by an ADS
manufacturer or operator will take 15 minutes to submit, and for ADS
manufacturers that have no reportable information to submit, this will
be the only burden associated with submitting the monthly report. For
manufacturers that also produce ADAS Level 2 vehicles, NHTSA estimates
that submitting monthly reports will take 2 hours, which allow the
manufacturer to verify whether the manufacturers have received any
reportable information. NHTSA estimates that there will be 90 ADS
manufacturers and operators and 20 manufacturers of Level 2 ADAS
vehicles each year (including manufacturers that produce both Level 2
ADAS vehicles and ADS vehicles). Therefore, NHTSA estimates that
annually respondents will spend 750 hours preparing and submitting
monthly reports not including burden associated with providing new or
updated reportable information (90 ADS manufacturers and operators x 12
monthly reports x 0.25 hours = 270 hours; 20 Level 2 ADAS manufacturers
x 12 monthly reports x 2 hours = 480 hours; 270 + 480 = 750).
    As described above, NHTSA estimates that there will be 200 ADS
crash reports each year and 100 of those will be required to be
submitted within one business day. The remaining 100 ADS crash reports
will be submitted via monthly reports. NHTSA estimates that preparing
and submitting monthly reports that contain crash reports to take, on
average, 2 hours to prepare and submit. Therefore, NHTSA estimates the
burden associated with preparing and submitting ADS crash report
information that will be submitted in monthly reports to be 200 hours
(100 monthly reports x 2 hours).
    In addition to submitting information about new ADS crashes in
monthly reports, respondents also are required to submit updated
information in the following month if any new material or materially
different information about any ADS or Level 2 ADAS incident is
received. NHTSA estimates that for 20% of ADS crashes first reported in
a monthly report (i.e., not a one-day report), respondents will need to
submit updated information. For ADS and Level 2 ADAS crashes that are
reported within one business day, NHTSA estimates that respondents will
need to submit updated information in monthly reports for 5% of those
crashes (these would be updates in addition to those reported within
ten days). Therefore, NHTSA estimates that 195 monthly reports will
include updated crash information (100 ADS crashes first reported in
monthly reports x 0.2 = 20 3,400 Level 2 ADAS one-day crashes x 0.05 =
170; 100 ADS one-day crashes x 0.05 = 5; 20 + 170 + 5 = 195). NHTSA
estimates that providing updated information within a monthly report
will take 1 hour. Therefore, NHTSA estimates the burden for monthly
reports with updated information to be 195 hours (195 monthly reports x
1 hour).
    The total burden associated with monthly reports is estimated to be
1,145 hours (750 hours + 200 hours + 195 hours), which averages to
about 10.4 hours per respondent.
    Training employees on the requirements. In addition to the burden
associated with preparing and submitting reports, any new reporting
entities added to the General Order are also expected to incur burden
associated with training employees on the reporting requirements. As
explained above, the existing 108 reporting entities named in the
General Order will not incur this burden during the requested
extension. NHTSA estimates that there will be an average of seven new
reporting entities added to the General Order each year during the
proposed extension, that an average of five of these new reporting
entities will be ADS manufacturers or operators and that an average of
two of these new reporting entities will be Level 2 ADAS manufacturers.
    NHTSA expects that ADS manufacturers and operators normally monitor
all crashes and, therefore, will not need to train personnel on how to
respond to this new information collection. NHTSA, however, does expect
that some Level 2 ADAS manufacturers may need to spend time training
personnel on the requirements. Although the amount of time may vary by
manufacturer, NHTSA estimates that, on average, the two Level 2 ADAS
manufacturers will spend 40 hours on training. Therefore, NHTSA
estimates the total annual burden for training to be 80 hours (2
manufacturers x 40 hours).
    Time to set up an account to submit the reports. NHTSA also
estimates that new responding entities added to the General Order
during the proposed extension period will need to set up a new account
with NHTSA to allow them to submit reports. NHTSA estimates that each
of the estimated average of 10 responding entities added to the General
Order annually need to set up new accounts with NHTSA. NHTSA estimates
that setting up an account will take 2 hours. Therefore, NHTSA
estimates the total annual burden to be 20 hours.

    NHTSA estimates the total annual burden hours for the seven
components of this ICR to be 11,745 hours (6,800 hours for initial one-
day Level 2 ADAS reports, 3,400 hours for updated one-day Level 2 ADAS
reports, 200 hours for initial one-day ADS reports, 100 hours for
updated ADS reports, 945 hours for monthly reports, 80 hours for
training, and 20 hours for setting up new accounts).
    To calculate the labor cost associated with preparing and
submitting crash reports and reports, training, and setting up new
accounts, NHTSA looked at wage estimates for the type of personnel
involved with these activities. NHTSA estimates the total labor costs
associated with these burden hours by looking at the average wage for
architectural and engineering managers in the motor vehicle
manufacturing industry (Standard Occupational Classification # 11-
9041). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that the average
hourly wage is $65.62.\5\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that
private industry workers' wages represent 70.4% of total labor
compensation costs.\6\ Therefore, NHTSA estimates the hourly labor
costs to be $93.21. Accordingly, NHTSA estimates the total labor cost
associated with the 11,745 burden hours to be $1,168,760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm#15-0000 (accessed June 21, 2021).
    \6\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership (Mar. 2021), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm (accessed June 21, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated burden hours and labor
costs associated with those submissions.

                                                                Table 1--Burden Estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Estimated
                                         Number of      burden per
     Description of information          responses       response         Average     Labor cost per   Total burden
        collection component            (number of      (burden per    hourly labor      response          hours               Total labor costs
                                       respondents)     respondent)        cost
                                                          (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 2 ADAS one-day reports,             3,400 (20)         2 (340)          $93.21         $186.42           6,800  $633,828.
 initial.
Level 2 ADAS one-day reports, update      3,400 (20)         1 (170)           93.21           93.21           3,400  316,914.
ADS one-day reports, initial........             100               2           93.21          186.42             200  18,642.
ADS one-day reports, update.........             100               1           93.21           93.21             100  9,321.
Monthly Reports.....................     1,320 (110)     0.87 (10.4)           93.21           80.85           1,145  106,724.45 (106,724).
Training............................           2 (2)         40 (40)           93.21        3,728.40              80  7,456.80 (7,457).
Setting Up Account..................         10 (10)           2 (2)           93.21          186.42              20  1,864.20 (1,864).
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................     8,320 (110)  ..............  ..............  ..............          11,745  1,094,751.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost

    NHTSA does not currently know whether manufacturers will incur
additional costs, nor does NHTSA have a basis for estimating these
costs. However, in the interim, NHTSA believes manufacturers will be
able to comply with requirements by only incurring labor costs
associated with the burden hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

Ann E. Carlson,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-21203 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68482-68483]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24745]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-AO-2022-0729; FRL-10307-01-OA]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Environmental Education Local Grants Progress Report Form

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Comment Request; Environmental
Education Local Grants Progress Report Form'' (EPA ICR No. 2731.01, OMB
Control No. 2090-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a
request for approval of a new collection. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2022-0729 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Band, Office of Environmental
Education, (1704A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of

the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv)
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. EPA will consider the comments received and
amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be
submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue
another Federal Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR
to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This notice announces the collection of information
related to the U.S. EPA Environmental Education (EE) Local Grants
Program. EPA proposes to collect information from this program's grant
recipients. Specifically, EPA proposes to have all EE grantees use the
progress report form, detailed in the Supporting Statement, when
drafting their Quarterly Progress Reports and Final Reports. By
requiring all EE Grantees to use the EE Local Grant Progress Report
Form, EPA's Office of Environmental Education will be equipped to
gather data on this grant program's outputs, outcomes, the total number
of individuals reached, and the total number of underserved communities
reached. This information will help EPA ensure projects are on schedule
to meet their goals and produce high quality environmental outputs.
Additionally, requiring all EE grantees to submit their Quarterly and
Final reports using the proposed form will allow EPA's Office of
Environmental Education to accurately track and report the overall
impact of this grant program as well as contribute to the Agency's
Justice40 reporting requirements.
    Form Numbers: EPA Form Number 5800-082.
    Respondents/affected entities: Local education agencies, colleges
or universities, state education or environmental agencies, nonprofit
organizations as described in Section 501(C)(3) of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Code, noncommercial educational broadcasting entities as
defined and licensed by U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (in accordance with
OMB and EPA regulations, Title 2 CFR, Parts 200 and 1500, the recipient
agrees to submit progress reports on a quarterly basis to the EPA
Project Officer within thirty (30) days after each reporting period and
the Final Report to the EPA Project Officer within one hundred twenty
(120) days after the expiration or termination of the approved project
period.
    Estimated number of respondents: 120 (per year).
    Frequency of response: Four times per year for the Quarterly
Progress Reports; one time for the Final Report.
    Total estimated burden: 720 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $37,987 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: Without revised burden numbers at this time,
the Office of Environmental Education expects the burden numbers to
decrease in the future due to increased access to technology.

Hiram Tanner III,
Director, Office of Environmental Education (OEE).
[FR Doc. 2022-24745 Filed 11-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P