[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3087-3088]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00682]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87948; File No. SR-IEX-2020-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct
Three Typographical Errors in IEX Rules 11.190(e) and 11.220(a)(7)

January 13, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on (date), the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is filing with the Commission a
proposed rule change to correct three typographical errors in IEX Rules
11.190(e) and 11.220(a)(7). The Exchange has designated this rule
change as ``non-controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\6\ and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently filed a proposed rule change to amend, in
part, IEX Rules 11.190(e) and Rule 11.220(a)(7) related to the
Exchange's anti-internalization functionality (the ``Original
Filing'').\8\ The Original Filing introduced two typographical errors
in IEX Rule 11.190(e) and one typographical error in IEX Rule
11.220(a)(7), which the Exchange proposes to correct as described
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87798 (December 18,
2019), 84 FR 71053 (December 26, 2019) (SR-IEX-2019-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to add the number ``2'' in IEX Rule
11.190(e) to denote a numbered subparagraph between subparagraphs (1)
and (3). The Original Filing inadvertently deleted the number ``2'' to
denote the applicable subparagraph.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to delete the word ``modifier'' from
the first sentence of IEX Rule 11.190(e)(3). The Original Filing
inadvertently did not mark the word for deletion as intended.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to modify the first sentence of Rule
11.220(a)(7), in which a deletion bracket and the preceding letter were
inadvertently underlined in the Original Filing. The Exchange thus
proposes to delete the deletion bracket and preceding letter as
intended.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \9\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, IEX believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ because it will
eliminate any confusion regarding IEX rules by correcting inadvertent
typographical errors introduced by the Original Filing in IEX Rules
11.190(e)(2) and 11.220(a)(7) without changing the substance of such
rule provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
designed to address any competitive issues but rather to correct
inadvertent typographical errors, thereby eliminating any potential
confusion regarding such rule provisions without changing their
substance.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires the Exchange to give
the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has
represented that it would like to implement the proposed rule changes
on the same schedule as the Original Filing to avoid any potential
confusion. The proposed rule change only corrects non-substantive
typographical errors in the Exchange's recently adopted rule and thus
does not raise any new or novel issues. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay period is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest and hereby
waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule
change operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \18\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2020-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2020-01. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2020-01 and should be submitted on
or before February 7, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00682 Filed 1-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Economy Compliance; Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks, and Highway Motorcycles EPA ICR 0783.47 May, 2005 Certification and Compliance Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality Office of Air and Radiation U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2 Part A SUBMISSION Section 1: Identification Of The Information Collection 1( a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Economy Compliance; Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks, and Highway Motorcycles ( Renewal), EPA ICR number 0783.47, OMB control number 2060 0104.

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract Beginning with the 1968 model year, the Federal Government has regulated air pollution emitted by motor vehicles. While light vehicles ( passenger cars and light trucks) were the first to be regulated, other classes ( e. g., motorcycles and recreational vehicles) have subsequently been included. The first ( and continuing) phase of regulation consisted of prototype certification: manufacturers demonstrate that a particular design meets applicable requirements and they received a " certificate" ( license) allowing that design to be sold; EPA performs " confirmatory" tests on some of the vehicles as part of this certification program. Subsequent program developments addressed compliance with emissions requirements after the vehicles are sold; vehicles failing to meet requirements in use are subject to recall and repair by the manufacturer. During these three and a half decades of emission control, considerable progress has been made in reducing vehicular air pollution. A new passenger car today will emit much less than one tenth the exhaust pollution of its uncontrolled predecessor.

During the 1973 oil embargo, there was a need for improved automotive fuel economy information. EPA was able to fulfill part of this need using information collected during its emission testing program. ( To determine the mass of pollution emitted, the quantity and composition of a vehicle's exhaust must be determined. Using that information, the quantity of fuel consumed can be calculated.) This limited information was expanded by adding a " highway" driving schedule and by implementing a voluntary program whereby vehicle manufacturers tested and submitted information on a more complete spectrum of their product line. ( Because the emission certification program emphasized " worst case" vehicles, it might not accurately reflect a manufacturer's entire product line, hence the need for additional information.) Congress subsequently enacted legislation mandating fuel economy labeling, establishing average fuel economy standards, and imposing " gas guzzler" taxes. Those activities all rely on information generated under EPA's emission compliance and fuel economy programs.

This ICR covers EPA's combined light duty vehicle and light duty truck ( LDV/ LDT) emission compliance program and the fuel economy program for light duty vehicles ( LDVs). Not only do these programs share a common test procedure, they also rely, in large part, on the same information and are administered by the same staff. Developing separate estimates would not be practicable due to this integration. This ICR also covers the information burden for emissions compliance certification for highway motorcycles 3 ( HMCs).

This ICR covers the application ( and supporting test results) submitted by these categories of vehicle manufacturers prior to production as well as various reports and information during and after production, including the manufacturer's In Use Verification Program ( IUVP), and the Defect Report/ Voluntary Emissions Recall Report ( DR/ VERR) system that covers both HMCs and LDVs. In addition, LDV manufacturers are required to submit fuel economy reports for vehicles covered under the Energy Conservation and Policy Act. EPA's processing of this information is conducted by the Certification and Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.

Information collected under this ICR consists of descriptions of motor vehicles ( with emphasis on emission control systems), test results, defect and recall reports, and ( for LDVs) sales information. These data are reviewed to verify that the necessary tests have been performed, the manufacturer's product line meets emission standards, and the fuel economy reports are accurate. LDV information is used by EPA as well as the Internal Revenue Service (" gas guzzler" taxes), Department of Energy ( Fuel Economy Guides) and the Department of Transportation ( Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards). Most application and in use materials, including test results, are typically submitted in electronic format for inclusion in EPA's computer databases. Additional descriptive information can be submitted on optical disc ( smaller manufacturers may use paper submissions). Subject to confidentiality claims, this information is made available to interested parties upon request. Fuel economy ratings and emission test information is available on the internet.

Approximately 139 passenger car, light truck, and motorcycle manufacturers ( including independent commercial importers and alternative fuels vehicle converters) will submit applications each year to certify their products. The motor vehicle emission and fuel economy compliance programs, along with the HMC program, the IUVP, and the DR/ VERR program, will impose a cost of about $ 47.46 million annually on the regulated industries: $ 36.12 million in labor costs, $ 3.06 million in operation and maintenance costs, and $ 8.28 million in continuing capital costs.

Additional details on the coverage of this ICR are given in Section 2( b), below.

Section 2: Need For And Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority For The Collection Under Title II of the Clean Air Act ( 42 U. S. C. 7521 et seq.), EPA is charged with issuing certificates of conformity for motor vehicle designs that comply with applicable emission standards. A manufacturer must have a certificate before vehicles may be legally introduced into commerce. Similar provisions in the Energy Policy Conservation Act ( codified as Title III of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U. S. C. 2001 et seq.) require fuel economy ratings to be determined and vehicles to be labeled. To ensure compliance with these statutes, EPA reviews product information and manufacturer test results; EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm manufacturer results. Information is 4 also shared with other agencies: the Internal Revenue Service for " gas guzzler" taxes and the Department of Transportation for Corporate Average Fuel Economy ( CAFE) requirements.

EPA's emission compliance and fuel economy programs are statutorily mandated; the Agency does not have discretion to cease these functions. Under Section 206( a) of the Clean Air Act ( 42 U. S. C. 7525) "... The Administrator shall test ... any new motor vehicle ... submitted by a manufacturer ... If such vehicle ... conforms   the Administrator shall issue a certificate of conformity." EPA uses the information supplied by the manufacturer to verify that the proper test vehicles have been selected and that the necessary testing has been performed to assure that each vehicle design complies with emission standards. This information is also used by various state and local governments in running their vehicle Inspection and Maintenance ( I/ M) programs. Similarly, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that "... Average fuel economy   shall be calculated by the EPA Administrator ..."; 15 U. S. C. 2003. Automobile manufacturers are required to affix fuel economy labels " as determined in accordance with rules of the EPA Administrator"; 15 U. S. C. 2006. While EPA has delegated a substantial portion of the process of calculating fuel economy labels to the manufacturers, the test results upon which such labels are based are subject to EPA confirmatory testing. Such confirmation testing assures that results from different manufacturers can be accurately used for comparison.

The compliance program for HMCs operates in a largely similar fashion except that fuel economy requirements do not apply to motorcycles.

Relevant portions of the above statutes can be found in Appendix I. The regulations dealing with LDV/ LDT and HMC emission control can be found in 40 CFR Parts 85 and 86. EPA's LDV fuel economy provisions are found in 40 CFR Part 600. The regulations are not attached to this statement due to their length and technical nature.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The discussion in this section outlines the major features of the programs covered by this ICR as well as summarizing some of the recent historical and ongoing developments that have a bearing on the information burden.

Emissions Program For Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks Motor vehicle manufacturers must submit an application for emission certification prior to production. The application describes the major aspects of the proposed product line, technical details of the emission control systems, and the results of tests to indicate compliance with emissions limitations. The application and supporting test results are reviewed and, if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued. EPA will conduct a limited number of confirmatory tests at its laboratory to verify the manufacturer's results and insure that EPA and manufacturer laboratory tests are properly correlated. The testing regime was significantly reorganized in the Supplementary Federal Test Procedure rulemaking in 1996 ( see 61 FR 54851). Another major change occurred with the CAP2000 5 program ( see 85 FR 23905, May 4, 1999). Costs associated with these and all other testing requirements are treated as ongoing capital costs in the current ICR rather than as one time startup costs.

Under the CAP2000 program, an initial step in the certification process is to divide a manufacturer's product line into groups of vehicle designs that are expected to have similar emission control characteristics; the top level of such groups is the " durability group" of vehicles expected to have similar deterioration over their useful lives. This redirected EPA and manufacturer effort toward in use compliance and gave manufacturers more control over pre production certification, with savings in paperwork burden that were reflected in ICR 0783.38. Deterioration factors are established for each group, which are then used to adjust results from low mileage test vehicles to predict useful life emission levels. A deterioration factor is established either by testing ( including bench testing and artificial aging) or by " carrying over" a factor from a previously certified similar group.

Light duty vehicles ( passenger cars) and light duty trucks are divided into durability groups based on a number of fundamental characteristics, including combustion cycle ( diesel, spark ignited, number of strokes per cycle, etc.), engine type ( piston, rotary, air/ water cooling media), fuel ( gasoline, methanol, flexible, etc.), and catalyst loading per unit engine displacement. ( The actual classification process is somewhat more complicated; see 40 CFR 86.1820.) Each durability group may be further divided ( depending on the particular manufacturer's product line) into " test groups." Test groups include vehicles which will be certified to a single emission standard, have the same number and arrangement of cylinders, and fall within a limited range ( slightly less than one liter) of displacement. ( Test groups are defined in 40 CFR 86.1827.)

Light duty vehicles and trucks also must be certified to meet applicable evaporative emissions and refueling emission requirements. Test groups for these vehicles may therefore be further divided into evaporative/ refueling families for this purpose; in this case, each test group and evaporative/ refueling combination will receive a separate certificate of conformity.

When a new model year vehicle is sufficiently similar to the previous year's model that the " durability group", " test group", or " test group/ evaporative family" descriptions do not need to be changed, a certification application can be " carried over" from the previous application. The burden of preparing the application in such cases will be less because previous test results can be used, and the vehicle will be less likely to be selected for confirmatory testing. If the model has changed such that its durability characteristics, test group designations, or evaporative emissions characteristics change, then new supporting application information will be required. Similarly, when manufacturers make minor changes that affect the durability, test group, or evaporative emissions characteristics for an already certified engine model, a " running change" for that change must be submitted and a new certificate issued if the effect on emissions is substantial. The paperwork burden for such running changes is usually quite small. 6 Information gathered for purposes of certification is also used by EPA in the fuel economy program ( 15 U. S. C. 2000, et seq.) as well as EPA in use compliance testing. For example, when a particular vehicle type is discovered to exceed emission standards, the manufacturer's application may be reviewed to determine the cause of the failure. ( Typically, part specifications in the application are much more detailed than those in the service literature.) EPA's motor vehicle emission in use compliance program is covered by and discussed with more detail in ICR 0222.07 ( OMB Control No. 2060 0086).

In Use Verification Program Another aspect of the emphasis on in use compliance from the CAP2000 program is the IUVP. Beginning with model year 2001, manufacturers are required to recruit and test " as is" high mileage ( generally over 50,000 miles) LDV/ LDTs for compliance with emissions requirements. This requirement was extended to " medium duty passenger vehicles" in the final Tier 2 regulations in February, 2000, and to all other complete Otto cycle heavy duty vehicles up to 14,000 GVWR ( gross vehicle weight rating) in regulations finalized in October, 2000. The window for these tests is between four and five years from the end of production of the test group. Likewise, beginning with model year 2004, low mileage vehicles ( over 10,000 miles) are to be recruited and tested within one year of the end of production. Consequently, the first MY 2000 ( for optional early participants) and 2001 high mileage test results are beginning to come in now ( early calendar year 2005), as well as some of the MY2004 low mileage results. The burden of the IUVP was considered in the Regulatory Support Document for the CAP2000 program and were incorporated into the 0783 ICR series. This estimate is updated in the current ICR.

In addition to the low and high mileage in use testing requirements, the IUVP program requires manufacturer confirmatory testing, in cases where the specified thresholds of failures occur in the in use testing. It is likewise early to estimate the burden of this additional testing based on reported data, but the early EPA assumption has been that manufacturers will be able to avoid triggering this requirement through additional testing.

Fuel Economy for Light Duty Vehicles Some of the product information used to verify emission compliance is also used, in conjunction with additional tests and projected sales, to establish fuel economy ratings. Based on test results, EPA calculates a fuel economy number for each vehicle model. EPA then computes an average fuel economy for each manufacturer that is weighted by the number of units of each of its vehicle models in that year. This " harmonic mean" calculation is statutory ( 49 U. S. C. 32904). Separate numbers are calculated for passenger cars and for light duty trucks up to 8500 pounds GVWR. These are the numbers used, after certain adjustments, by the Department of Transportation to determine each manufacturer's compliance with the CAFE program. In a separate program, the fuel economy ratings, used to comply with the labeling requirements for new vehicles ( 40 CFR Part 600, Subpart D), are listed by model type. These ratings are computed as the sales weighted harmonic mean of the " base levels" within each model type, which in turn are calculated as the sales weighted harmonic mean of the configurations/ subconfigurations within each base level. 7 This procedure is intended to ensure that the most representative fuel economy values are posted on new vehicles, which are sold by the manufacturer's model designation rather than categories that correspond to the test groups that are used for generating fuel economy data as a part of the certification process.

Fees for Light Duty Vehicles and Trucks Part of the application process includes payment of fees to EPA for administering the certification program. The fees program was recently updated to include applications for a number of categories of recently regulated engines and vehicles; the paperwork burden associated with those fees is now covered by OMB Control Number 2060 0545 ( ICR 2080.02). Examples include several categories of marine, off road spark ignition and combustion ignition, locomotive, and recreational vehicle engines. As these other engine and vehicle programs are sufficiently distinct not to be consolidated into this ICR, we have decided to keep the fees ICR for those engines separate for the time being. ICR 0783.47 will continue to cover fees for passenger cars, light duty trucks, and highway motorcycles. Work is underway as of early 2005 to allow for credit card and EFT ( electronic funds transfer) payments to be made online. It is anticipated that this will represent a considerable convenience for manufacturers able to take advantage of it. However, no change in the paperwork burden is being made at this time pending successful implementation of this improvement.

Chassis Certified Heavy Duty Vehicles In regulations finalized on October 6, 2000 ( 65 FR 59896), all complete gasoline heavy duty trucks up to 14,000 GVWR were made subject to chassis testing ( excluding the supplemental federal test procedures) for certification and EPA confirmatory testing, as well as being placed under the general requirements of the CAP2000 program. The requirements generally go into effect with model year 2005, with some variations due to phase in options. Because the Certification and Compliance Division will be administering this program along with the light duty vehicle and trucks and medium duty passenger vehicle programs, it is appropriate to include this portion of the overall heavy duty vehicle program in this ICR rather than in the heavy duty ICR 1684. The inclusion is reflected in a modest projected increase in the number of engine families covered.

Highway Motorcycles Federal standards for HMCs have been in effect since the 1978 model year. On January 15, 2004, EPA finalized the first revision to these standards, as well as including for the first time engines with displacements of less than 50cc and adding new standards that will require the use of low permeability fuel tanks and fuel hoses. These provisions begin going into effect with the 2006 or later model years ( small volume manufacturers have an extended schedule and in some cases different standards). There are several other special provisions to reduce the regulatory burden on small manufacturers. The Paperwork Reduction Act burdens for the highway motorcycle program were adjusted in ICR 0783.43 and 0783.46. These burdens are updated in the present ICR. 8 The program for regulating emissions from HMCs is similar in outline to that for light duty vehicles: manufacturers group vehicles/ engines into engine families, conduct emissions tests ( using the same federal test procedure as for light duty vehicles, with minor modifications) to demonstrate compliance with exhaust emissions standards, calculate durability factors for useful life compliance, and submit an application for certification along with an application fee. EPA issues a certificate, possibly after confirmatory testing. Manufacturers are potentially subject to selective enforcement testing or EPA in use compliance tests; although EPA does not currently conduct such tests, an EPA in use compliance program similar to that for LDV/ LDTs is under discussion.

Defect Reports and Voluntary Emissions Recall Reports A reporting component of the light duty and highway motorcycle programs requires filing of defect reports, voluntary emissions recall reports, and voluntary recall quarterly reports by manufacturers for in use vehicles. The information burden of this DR/ VERR program was included in the ICR 0282 series ( OMB 2060 0048) until 0282.12, when the highway, light duty vehicle portion was split off and designated ICR 1916.01 ( OMB 2060 0048). In September, 2003, ICR 1916 was consolidated into the present ICR 0783. For ease in tracking the burden of this light duty program in this and future ICRs, the calculation has been disaggregated from the overall burden calculations and updated to reflect current response numbers, respondents, and labor costs. Beginning with calendar 2005, the filing of these reports is being computerized so that manufacturers can file their reports electronically. In the near term, we anticipate that the initial startup and familiarization burdens of implementing this system for respondents will be offset by the gains in efficiency. After the new system has some operating experience, we will be able to reflect any net changes in the reporting and recordkeeping burden.

Recreational Vehicles On November 8, 2002, EPA published final rules on the control of emissions from 2006 and later model year recreational vehicles ( off highway motorcycles, snowmobiles, and allterrain vehicles) as well as a number of other off road engine categories. The recreational vehicle burdens were incorporated in this ICR in 0783.43 and 0783.44. The burden for recreational vehicles was subsequently shifted to ICR 1695.08 ( OMB number 2060 0338) and the burden in 0783 is adjusted here accordingly.

Investigation into Possible Noncompliance of Motor Vehicles The LDV/ LDT and HMC emissions compliance programs include pre production, production, and in use components. Motor vehicles are evaluated as prototypes prior to production, and those designs that meet applicable criteria are certified for introduction into commerce. EPA also has discretion to conduct selective enforcement testing of assembly line vehicles. This was an important enforcement tool for EPA prior to CAP2000, but since then it has been replaced by the IUVP: no selective enforcement tests have been performed since. While EPA retains the statutory authority to conduct assembly line tests and under exceptional circumstances might use it, no burden is assigned to this activity in 9 the current or this ICR. Finally, in addition to the manufacturer IUVP and voluntary recalls, EPA conducts its own in use compliance testing program. That program is covered separately in ICR 0222.07 ( OMB Control No. 2060 0086).

CFEIS and VERIFY Electronic submission by manufactures to the Certification and Fuel Economy Information System ( CFEIS) began to be implemented for LDV/ LDTs after CAP2000. In 2003, manufacturers who meet the qualifying criteria were permitted to self generate a certificate of conformity under the CFEIS ACGM ( Automatic Certificate Generation by Manufacturers) system. At that time the system was also expanded to include certification submittals for some of the heavier vehicles coming into the program ( heavy duty chassis certified engines, medium duty passenger vehicles). The VERIFY system currently under development will replace CFEIS and integrate it with other compliance databases ( heavy duty, nonroad, motorcycle). Implementation of pilot system databases began in 2005 with the highway motorcycle and recreational vehicle reporting system. A feature of the new database is the updating of the manufacturer submission process via an easy to use web interface. This, along with other features, including improved coordination with California's certification process and improved manufacturer capacity to self correct submissions, is expected to result in savings both to EPA and manufacturers after an initial development and familiarization period; the current ICR does not yet incorporate these expected savings.

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information collection. The fuel economy and emission compliance programs have been highly integrated; the same information serves two purposes. Furthermore, as mentioned above, EPA is moving toward the VERIFY system, under which the manufacturer submission process will occur within a Central Data Exchange ( CDX) environment that should further help minimize duplication in submissions.

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

3( b) Public Notice Prior to ICR Submission to OMB EPA solicited public comment by means of a Federal Register Notice published on August 13, 2004, 69 FR 50189; a copy can be found in Appendix III. 10 3( c) Consultations In preparing the previous ICR submission, EPA consulted with the following individuals working in the regulated industry:

Individual Firm Telephone Randy Harvey General Motors ( 248) 685 6976 Mike Fuhrer Ford ( 313) 323 0403 Jerry Steffy Harley Davidson ( 414) 465 6101 These individuals have experience with various aspects of EPA's current programs. Their comments have been reflected in the burden estimates discussed below. EPA wishes to thank them and their colleagues for their assistance in preparing this report.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection As required by the Clean Air Act ( 42 USC 7525( a)), emission and fuel economy information is submitted on a yearly basis coinciding with the manufacturer's " model year." EPA allows applicants to define their own " model year", thus granting some flexibility in this regard. Major product changes typically occur at the start of a model year. For these reasons, a collection frequency longer than a model year is not possible. However, when a vehicle design is " carried over" to a subsequent model year, the amount of new information required is substantially reduced. Other information collections listed in Appendix II are conducted according to schedules that were determined in rulemakings and included paperwork burden analyses as mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3( e) General Guidelines Manufacturers are required to keep some records for periods longer than three years. This requirement stems from the statutory requirement that manufacturers warrant some items for periods longer than 3 years. Manufacturers must also recall vehicle classes failing to meet emission standards during their useful life, typically 5 to 11 years depending on vehicle type. In order to satisfy these obligations, manufacturers must retain product information, with particular emphasis on the emission control systems. This information is vital in assuring that repairs and replacement parts properly function during the life of the warranty and that emissions limitations are met during the full useful lives. EPA believes that this recordkeeping requirement does not impose an unreasonable burden given the warranty and recall obligations. In fact, manufacturers would probably retain this information to support their normal business of supplying replacement parts.

This information collection activity complies with the remaining guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5. 11 3( f) Confidentiality Information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific vehicle to which it pertains is available for purchase. After vehicles are available, most information associated with the manufacturer/ importer's application is available to the public. Under section 208 of the Clean Air Act ( 42 USC 7542( c)) all information, other than trade secret processes or methods, must be publicly available. Proprietary information is granted confidentiality in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No sensitive questions are asked in this information collection. This collection complies with the Privacy Act and OMB Circular A 108.

Section 4: Respondents and Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes The respondents are involved in the industries shown in the following table:

Respondent Category NAICS Code Automotive and light duty motor vehicle manufacturers 33611 Motorcycle and motorcycle parts manufacturers 336991 Motorcycle, boat, and other motor vehicle dealers 441222 Independent commercial importers of vehicles and parts 421110 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data items Manufacturers are required to submit descriptions of their planned product line, including detailed descriptions of the emission control system, test data, and demonstrations of compliance with other requirements, such as methods for determining deterioration factors for durability and requirements pertaining to computerized on board devices ( OBD). This information is organized into various groups with similar emission or fuel economy characteristics. Manufacturers supply test data to verify that their products will comply with the emission standards; test data is also used to establish fuel economy ratings. They are also required to notify EPA of in use defects experienced by their vehicles and reports of voluntary recalls. Other major data items include submission of technical service bulletins; copies of warranties; Tier 2 averaging, banking, and trading calculations; ORVR ( On Road Vapor Recovery) safety reports, and fee filing forms for certification applications. Given the diversity of vehicles produced and the complicated nature of the regulations, in certain instances manufacturers may also find it advantageous to request variances from standard EPA procedures. 12 A list of detailed information requirements and their corresponding regulation citations appears in Appendix II.

( ii) Respondent Activities The emission and fuel economy compliance programs are, of necessity, quite complex given the diversity of products available. These programs have evolved over the past three decades to balance testing and reporting burdens against the risk of unnecessary air pollution and inaccurate fuel economy information. While there is no " typical" respondent, all manufacturers must describe their product and supply test data and other information to verify compliance. EPA will conduct a limited number of " confirmatory tests" to monitor manufacturer results. This requires test vehicles be shipped to EPA's laboratory. Manufacturers must also retain records. These tasks are repeated for each model year, although typically previous data and information can be " carried over" when no significant changes have occurred. If, during the course of a model year a product change is made ( a " running change"), EPA must be notified. Under some circumstances additional test data may be required.

During production various reports must be submitted, and, after a given model year production has ended, a final report must also be submitted. Manufacturers must also submit reports concerning defects that are discovered and voluntary recalls that are conducted; they may also be requested to review various aspects of in use testing that EPA may elect to conduct. Manufacturers are also required to conduct their own in use testing; this is the In Use Verification Program ( IUVP).

Section 5: The Information Collected   Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities A significant portion of EPA's emission and fuel economy compliance activity is spent reviewing applications to verify that the correct vehicle tests have been conducted and necessary information submitted. Running change submissions must also be reviewed for possible emissions impacts and manufacturers' evaluations thereof. A part of this process involves determining if " carry over" of data from a previous model year is appropriate or if new testing will be required. EPA will also select a number of tests for confirmation at EPA's own laboratory.

EPA prepares an annual report of emission test results and reviews annual fuel economy reports submitted by the manufacturers.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA currently makes extensive use of computers in collecting information from vehicle manufacturers. Essentially all routine information ( test results and vehicle descriptions) is electronically transmitted directly from the manufacturers through the CFEIS system and 13 the VERIFY system under development. Remaining information, including diagrams and narrative descriptions, is submitted on optical disc. ( Some smaller motorcycle manufacturers rely on paper submissions.) As discussed above, highway motorcycle, DR/ VERR, and fees submissions are all likewise either already computerized or in the process of becoming so.

All information received by EPA is subject to review. Data submitted electronically is automatically screened; test results that are close to emission standards are reviewed in more detail. Narrative descriptions of the proposed product line are checked to verify that the appropriate vehicles have been tested. ( The emission and fuel economy programs rely on a combination of " worst case" and representative data to accomplish their goals.) Except for projected sales and a very limited amount of proprietary product information ( typically catalyst formulations), all information is available to the public as soon as the vehicle is offered for sale. Emission and fuel economy data is available on the internet; other information is available upon request under the Freedom of Information Act.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA has special procedures for small volume LDV/ LDT manufacturer certifications; i. e., those whose total sales are less than 10,000 units per year. These special procedures allow the small volume manufacturer to submit a simplified application for certification with respect to durability demonstrations. These manufacturers also have reduced testing and reporting requirements under the IUVP. Further, by the very nature of their size, small volume manufacturers typically have very limited product lines. This characteristic both reduces the amount of information which must be submitted and also simplifies the process of selecting the correct test vehicle( s). Another provision for small manufacturers is the reduced certification fees available for manufacturers and importers of vehicles, who may pay one percent of the expected retail sales value of the vehicles if that is less than the normal fee. There are also several special provisions to reduce the regulatory burden on small highway motorcycle manufacturers: in addition to hardship exemptions and program delays, manufacturers with sales less than 3000 per year and 500 employees may use broader definitions of engine categories, and those with less than 10,000 units per year have reduced certification submission requirements ( no test results reported) and reduced durability showings.

5( d) Collection Schedule Information must be submitted for each " model year" that a manufacturer intends to build ( or import) vehicles. A " model year" is usually about one calendar year long; it typically begins prior to January 1st of the calendar year. If a product is unchanged between model years, much of the information can be " carried over." The collection frequency and burden are determined to a large extent by the manufacturer's marketing and product plans. However, as required by law, some submission is required for each model year's production. Other information collections listed in Appendix II are conducted according to schedules that were determined in rulemakings. 14 Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The burden estimates below separately consider four programs covered by this ICR: The LDV/ LDT emissions and fuel economy compliance programs, The IUVP, the HMC program, and the DR/ VERR system, all described above in section 2( b). This organization is motivated by the history of the addition of these programs to this ICR and of their implementation, as discussed above, with the expectation that separate treatment will allow for greater continuity and accountability in the calculation of the burdens for each.

Within the LDV/ LDT, IUVP, and HMC programs, the estimation of respondent burden is essentially broken down into three parts: testing burden, reporting burden, and recordkeeping burden, with some features specific to particular programs included therein ( notably, procurement for IUVP and confirmatory testing burdens on manufacturers for LDV/ LDT). The DR/ VERR program is entirely reporting and recordkeeping, but includes both LDV/ LDTs and HMCs.

The HMC reporting burden is based on ICR 0783.43 and 0783.46, updated with the latest figures on numbers of applicants and tests performed; see below. The DR/ VERR is likewise an updated version of ICR 1016.01. Recreational vehicles are now covered by ICR to ICR 1695.08.

By far the largest burden is from the LDV/ LDT emissions and fuel economy compliance program. The basic outline of this burden estimate dates back to the CAP2000 cost study and the ICR that incorporated it ( ICR 0783.38). The present burden estimate continues the process of updating based on a renewed examination of the burdens, consultations with industry, and consultations with program administrators within EPA.

The principal changes in the approach to burden calculation from the previous ICR are the following:

First, the important IUVP program is broken out and considered separately.

Second, testing burdens for LDV/ LDT and IUVP are based on a very careful analysis of the actual number of unique tests conducted, regardless of how many times the test results have been reported, rather than assumptions about the average number of test vehicles per test group or the percentage of test results that are carried over from prior years. This analysis is based on a rigorous screening of several databases, from hand counts to computer queries, an analysis that has confirmed many economies in the program whereby one test frequently serves several purposes. In addition to carry overs, for example, " city" and " highway" emissions tests can sometimes be used to produce useable fuel economy data, and fuel economy tests can sometimes be used for emissions purposes. ( One result of this fact is that the total testing burden of the fuel economy and emissions programs together is accurate because the costs and hours per test are the same for both.) The burdens reported below are based on this analysis for the base year of model year 2004, 15 with minor adjustments for anticipated applications for heavy duty chassis certified engines and for increased applications by foreign manufacturers of highway motorcycles. Third, a more detailed accounting of every type of test conducted ( for example, ORVR tests, Cold CO tests, SFTP tests, Certification Short Tests, and others) has been undertaken, again based on an accurate count of the actual unique tests reported. The capital costs of these tests are those specified in previous ICRs ( with minor modifications for various test species): $ 8 million for an environmental facility that can carry out 300 tests per year, and $ 4 millions for a normal test facility that can conduct 750 tests per year. ORVR facilities cost $ 600,000 and can conduct 1000 tests per year. These capital costs are treated, as they have been in the past, as continuing capital expenses rather than one time startup costs.

Fourth, the prior ICR included operations and maintenance costs for mileage accumulation of test vehicles totaling four million miles at $ 0.30 per mile. The present ICR includes mileage accumulation expenses for the relevant durability demonstrations ( there are several variations available, not all of which require mileage accumulation) using a more complicated and realistic formula from the CAP2000 cost study. Our current information indicates that this is a more realistic method for estimating durability demonstration burdens. This has resulted in an increase in the total O& M burden for this ICR.

Fifth, the prior ICR used a figure of $ 100 per hour for labor costs, including overhead. The current ICR is based on the Federal pay grades ( with a 24% benefits and overhead adjustment) performing tasks similar to those performed by management, technical, and secretarial labor in the automotive industry conducting compliance activities. We also concluded that these are better estimators of management, technical, and secretarial costs than the corresponding Bureau of Labor Statistics figures: we use $ 83.80, $ 38.50, and $ 28.58 compared to current BLS figures of $ 72.46, $ 48.36, and $ 19.22, respectively.

Sixth, in EPA's review of the programs covered by this ICR, an attempt has been made, where feasible, to re examine individually many of the cost items that are reported within aggregated categories. Examples include costs borne by manufacturers for those vehicles chosen for confirmatory testing at EPA's laboratory, including shipping and preparation costs, and separate consideration of several reporting programs, including submission of warranty copies, technical service bulletins, fee filing forms, ORVR safety reports, and CFEIS updates.

For HMCs, this ICR continues the assumption in ICR 0783.42 onward that one fifth of all engine family certifications are new or retest applications and the remainder carryovers. Another important issue is the impact of expanding the program to include motorcycles with less than 50 cc displacements, which were formerly unregulated. The regulatory impact analysis for that rulemaking, the preamble to the rule, and the subsequent ICRs all assumed that the number of certification applications for such engines would be quite low; the market for these small motorcycles has been limited in the United States and only three manufacturers and four models are mentioned. Although the earliest requirements for these engines do not begin until the 2006 model year, early indications are that a larger number of domestic, and, in particular, foreign manufactures are interested in trying the U. S. market. The picture is further complicated by availability of expanded engine family 16 groupings and possible delays in the permeation standards for small manufacturers; many potential small motorcycle importers may qualify. Similarly, small motorcycle tank permeation standards potentially benefit from banking permeation credits from larger classes of motorcycles. All in all, we thought it prudent to increase the estimated number of less than 50 cc engine families to 35, and these have been added to the total. This and some other adjustments to the estimate for the motorcycle program has resulted in a modest increase in the estimated hours and costs for this program.

As emphasized in the draft ICR, the regulatory program and the automotive industry have evolved together now for more than three decades, and the highway motorcycle industry almost as long. It is no longer possible to determine what these industries would look like without the reporting and recordkeeping mandated by the Clean Air Act but with the rest of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder still in force. Manufacturers consulted respond with widely varying estimates of what their burdens of complying with the Act would be in the absence of EPA testing and reporting oversight.

Whereas manufacturers develop their products within the context of compliance with all the requirements of the Clean Air Act, we understand the Paperwork Reduction Act to be centrally concerned with reporting and recordkeeping burdens. Thus, we start with the burden of submitting information to EPA and keeping copies of that information. From there we go on to consider the costs of developing the information that has to be reported. Consequently, this ICR has traditionally included the burden of conducting tests that have to be reported to support EPA's oversight of compliance with the Clean Air Act. We take the cost of conducting the tests to include the capital costs of building the facilities to run the tests and the associated operations and maintenance costs, such as mileage accumulation for durability determinations, and labor costs.

Estimated Respondent Burden Hours:

Respondent Burden Hours Program/ Activity Number / Year Burden/ Activity ( hours) Total ( hours)

LDV/ LDT:  Fuel Economy tests 1908.0 28.0 53,424  Emissions tests 1640.0 24.8 40,634  Evap/ ORVR tests 326.0 14.0 4,564  ICIs& Alt Fuels tests 111.5 25.8 2,875  Durability & OBD demos 116.0 28.0 3,248  Cert Confirmatory burdens 798.0 2.3 1,863  Reporting and Recordkeeping 6,656.0 62.5 416,298 IUVP 3356.6 34.3 114,999 Highway Motorcycles 1000.0 5.5 5,482 Defect, Recall Reports 378.0 10.0 3,790 TOTAL 16,290 647,176 17 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating labor costs The estimated cost for labor is based on the Federal pay grades ( with a 24% benefits and overhead adjustment) performing tasks similar to those performed by management, technical, and secretarial labor in the automotive industry conducting compliance activities. We determined that these are better estimators of management, technical, and secretarial costs than the corresponding Bureau of Labor Statistics figures: we use $ 83.80, $ 38.50, and $ 28.58 compared to current BLS figures of $ 72.46, $ 48.36, and $ 19.22, respectively. We have estimated labor costs between these three categories for each labor item. The overall labor cost per hour under this methodology comes to $ 55.82. Applied to the total of 647,176 hours, the annual respondent labor burden is $ 36,124,648.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs O& M Costs:

Program/ Activity Number Activities/ Year Burden/ Activity ($) Total ($)

LDV/ LDT:  Durability & OBD demos 116.0 $ 19,828 $ 2,299,990  Reporting and Recordkeeping 6656.0 $ 3 $ 20,434 IUVP 3356.6 $ 157 $ 526,197 Highway Motorcycles 1000.0 $ 212 $ 212,132 Defect, Recall Reports 378.0 $ 4 $ 1,440 TOTAL $ 3,060,193 Operating costs historically have included the costs of mileage accumulation associated with durability demonstrations. The other major components are the cost of manufacturer recruitment of vehicles for tests under the IUVP and costs associated with motorcycle durability and permeation testing. The LDV/ LDT durability calculation used here is based on that developed for the CAP2000 cost estimate. It is assumed that 25 percent of demonstrations are via full mileage accelerated procedures and 75 percent through combinations of bench aging, aged components on emissions data vehicles, and deterioration factors calculated from emissions data vehicles. ( Small manufacturers can use assigned deterioration factors without the demonstration.) The largest component is the cost of mileage accumulation for the full mileage option. Durability demonstrations assume average vehicles valued at $ 25,000 of which typically 75% is recovered after the test, with 50% or 25% of the vehicles subject to reconfiguration for the test. The durability demonstration calculation also includes the operational cost of bench aging of the engines that use this method. The IUVP recruitment cost is based on the high estimate from the CAP2000 cost study. The motorcycle estimate is based on ICR 0783.46. 18 Non depreciated Capital Costs:

Program/ Activity Number Activities/ Year Total ($)

LDV/ LDT:  Fuel Economy tests 1908.0 $ 10,176,000  Emissions tests 1640.0 $ 20,459,333  Evap/ ORVR tests 326.0 $ 6,451,600  ICIs& Alt Fuels tests 111.5 $ 972,859  Durability & OBD demos 116.0 $ 0  Cert Confirmatory burdens 798.0 $ 0  Reporting and Recordkeeping 6656.0 $ 0  Fuel Economy tests 3356.6 $ 19,702,115 Highway Motorcycles 1000.0 $ 361,001 Defect, Recall Reports 378.0 $ 0 TOTAL $ 58,122,908 To perform the required testing, a combination of " environmental" and standard test cells are required. ( A portion of the testing must be done at cold and warm temperatures to verify that emissions controls remain effective.) Environmental test cells cost $ 8 million each and have a capacity of 300 tests per year; standard cells cost $ 4 million with a capacity of 750 tests per year. ORVR facilities cost $ 600,000 and have a capacity of 1000 tests per year. Other tests are variations on the demands for these facilities.

The annualized depreciated costs of these facilities using the standard assumptions of 7% interest yearly over ten years is $ 8,275,394. This is regarded as a permanent capital cost item; that is, we regard the capital stock as being continuously depreciated and replaced.

( iii) Start up Costs Capital costs are considered to be ongoing costs rather than start up costs. Other startup costs included in previous renewals also projected the baseline costs for outyears which are continued here.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden The emission and fuel economy compliance programs are administered by EPA's Certification and Compliance Division and Laboratory Operations Division. Approximately 26 full time employee equivalents are directly involved in the emission and fuel economy programs; their cost is approximately $ 2.9 million, including benefits but not overhead. EPA also participates in a program whereby the agency contracts with an organization that provides qualified persons to perform duties for the agency that are not performed by EPA employees. The cost associated with these persons that work directly on emission and fuel economy programs for the two divisions is approximately $ 0.5 million, not including overhead. Overhead percentage for the entire division is approximately 45, yielding an estimated total agency cost of $ 4.9 million. 19 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs From the above discussion the following total burden and cost estimates can be calculated. ( Due to the diverse nature of the motor vehicle industry, there is no typical or average respondent. Respondents can be large manufacturers with many products such as General Motors; they can also be small importers of a few specialized motorcycles per year.)

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost ( i) Respondent Tally RESPONDENTS 139 BURDEN HOURS 647,176 LABOR COST $ 36.1 million OPERATING COST $ 3.1 million CAPITALIZED COST $ 8.3 million ( ii) Agency Tally EMPLOYEES 26 CONTRACT LABOR COST $ 0.5 million COST $ 4.9 million 6( f) Reasons for change in burden The change in burden is due to the changes in methodology and coverage outlined above in 6( a) combined with new counts of the numbers of respondents, test groups, and tests performed. EPA has not made any program changes ( other than approved rulemakings) since the previous ICR renewal. The effect of these changes can be summarized as follows:

Labor hours: The draft version of this ICR as placed in the public docket in connection with the Federal Register notice ( Appendix III) estimated 542,000 labor hours, including 28,112 associated with recreational vehicles no longer covered in this ICR. The present estimate of 647,176 hours represents a 19.4 percent increase. This is primarily due to an increase in the number of light duty test groups from 300 to 416 along with a more detailed analysis of the labor burdens associated with a more comprehensive accounting of tests and reports.

Labor costs: The draft version multiplied 542,118 labor hours by $ 100 hours to arrive at $ 54.2 million dollars in total labor costs. The final version uses labor costs believed to be more in line with industry labor and overhead; under this methodology labor costs averaging $ 55.82 are applied to 647,176 hours for a total of $ 36.1 million.

O& M costs: The draft ICR included operations and maintenance costs for mileage accumulation under the durability demonstration requirements for certification. The final version increases the durability O& M costs from $ 1.2 million to $ 2.3 million by resorting 20 to a more comprehensive costing formula used in the CAP2000 cost estimate. The remainder of the total $ 3.1 million is primarily from O& M costs for highway motorcycle certification testing updated from ICR 0783.46 and from recruitment of vehicles for the IUVP.

Capital costs: The same assumptions about capital costs are used in the final ICR as in the draft and prior versions. The decrease in capital costs from $ 9.7 million to $ 8.3 million is the result of movement of the recreational vehicle program to another ICR and changes in the counts of tests performed in the LDV/ LDT, IUVP, and HMC programs.

6( g) Burden Statement The table in Section 6( e) presents the total estimated burden for the motorcycle and lightduty emission and fuel economy compliance programs, the IUVP program, and DR/ VERR program; approximately 647,176 hours per year. Annual operating and capitalized costs are approximately $ 3.1 million and $ 8.3 million respectively. Because the universe of vehicle manufacturers is quite diverse, there is no " typical" respondent. However, the burden estimates for the various individual activities in section 6( a) can be used to estimate the burden for a particular respondent. These estimates include time to review applicable regulations and guidance documents, generate and gather the necessary information, and submit documents.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2004 0092, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public 21 comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2004 0092) and OMB control number ( 2060 0104) in any correspondence. 22 Appendix I Legal Authority & Regulatory Citations Energy Policy and Conservation Act 15 U. S. C. 2003. Calculation of average fuel economy ( a) Method of calculation.

"( 1) Average fuel economy for purposes of section 2002 ( a) and ( c) of this title shall be calculated by the EPA Administrator..."

( d) Testing and calculation procedures.

"( 1) Fuel economy for any model type shall be measured, and average fuel economy of a manufacturer shall be calculated in accordance with testing calculation procedures established by EPA Administrator, by rule..."

15 U. S. C. 2005. Information and reports ( c) Tests, reports, etc. that may be required of manufacturers.

"( 1) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such tests, and provide such items and information as the Secretary or EPA Administrator may, by rule, reasonably require to enable the Secretary or the EPA Administrator to carry out their duties under this subchapter and under any rules prescribed pursuant to this subchapter..."

15 U. S. C. 2006. Labeling ( a) Label required on automobile; contents.

"( 1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph ( 2), each manufacturer shall cause to be affixed, and each dealer shall cause to be maintained, on each automobile manufactured in any model year after 1976, in a prominent place, a label ..."

"( 3) The form and content of the labels required under paragraphs ( 1) and ( 2), and the manner in which such labels shall be affixed, shall be prescribed by the EPA Administrator by rule..."

Clean Air Act 42 U. S. C. 7525. Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Engine Compliance Testing and Certification 23 ( a) Testing and issuance of certificate of conformity.

"( 1) The Administrator shall test, or require to be tested in such manner as he deems appropriate, any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine submitted by a manufacturer to determine whether such vehicle or engine conforms with regulations prescribed under section 7521 of this title. If such vehicle or engine conforms to such regulations, the Administrator shall issue a certificate of conformity upon such terms, and for such period ( not in excess of one year) as he may prescribe..."

45 U. S. C. 7542. Records and Reports ( a) Manufacturers' responsibility.

" Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports, and provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether such manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this part and the regulations thereunder and shall, upon request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Administrator, permit such officer or employee at reasonable times to have access to and copy such records."

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS 40 CFR Part 85: Control of air pollution from mobile sources.

40 CFR Part 86: Control of air pollution from new and in use highway vehicles and engines.

40 CFR Part 600: Fuel economy of motor vehicles 24 Appendix II Data Items List 40 CFR citation Description Part 85: Control of Air Pollution from Mobile Sources Subpart P: Importation of Motor Vehicles and Engines ( Sections 85.1501   85.1515)

[ Note: All these import provisions are covered by ICR 10.09, ( OMB Control No. 2060 0095) renewed through 2007]

Subpart R: Exclusions and Exemptions 85.1705 Reporting requirement. Application for testing exemption, motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine.

85.1706 Reporting requirement. Application pre certification exemption, motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine.

85.1708 Reporting requirement. Application for national security exemption, motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine.

85.1710 Recordkeeping requirement. Create and maintain adequate records accessible to EPA at reasonable times, per memorandum of exemption.

85.1712 Reporting requirement. Application for confidential treatment of submitted information, applications for exemptions/ exclusions.

Subpart S: Recall Regulations 85.1802 Reporting requirement. Remedial plan required, nonconforming motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine class.

85.1803 Reporting requirement. Remedial plan contents and requirements.

85.1806 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Remedial plan progress reports, owner notifications.

85.1808 Reporting requirement. Claims of confidential information.

Subpart T: Emission Defect Reporting 85.1903 Reporting requirement. Emission defect reports, motor vehicles 25 and motor vehicle engines.

85.1904 Reporting requirement. Voluntary emission recall reports, motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines.

85.1905 Reporting requirement. Request to use alternate report format.

85.1906 Recordkeeping requirement. Defect reports.

85.1908 Reporting requirement. Disclaimer of production warranty applicability.

85.1909 Reporting requirement. Request for confidential treatment of information.

Subpart V: Emissions Control System Performance Warranty Regulations [ Note: the Voluntary Aftermarket Part Certification Program is covered by ICR 116.07. However, the rest of the Subpart is Not covered in that ICR, in spite of that ICR's title. The following sections were erroneously excluded from the list in the draft ICR: ]

85.2110 Reporting requirement. Submission of owner's manuals and warranty statements.

85.2123 Reporting requirement. Claims of confidentiality.

Subpart W: Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests 85.2208 Reporting requirement. Application for alternative short test procedure.

Subpart Y: Fees [ Supersedes Part 86, Subpart J for certification requests after May 11, 2004]

[ Note: Non LDV/ LDT portions of Subpart Y, are covered by ICR 2080.02, OMB Control Number 2060 0545]

85.2406 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Submission of statement that reduced fee is appropriate; request for revision; submission of model year reduced fee payment report. Three year retention of basis for reduced fee.

85.2407 Reporting requirement. Requests for fee refunds.

85.2408 Reporting requirement. Applicant, product identification, fee category. 26 Part 86: Control of Emissions from New and In Use Highway Vehicles and Engines [ Note: Draft ICR omits Subpart A, General Provisions. Most active provisions are now in Subpart S. However, Subpart A still has important applicable provisions on retention of records:]

[ Note: Applicable provisions are frequently repeated or incorporated several times for differing model years. For example, 86.091 7, 094 7 and 096 7, and 86.000 7 are cumulative, parallel provisions. Some such provisions, such as those for initial certification, that are deemed no longer applicable are excluded from this list.]

86.000 7, 86.091 7, 86.094 7, 86.096 7 Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements. Detailed records on all vehicles used in certification applications other than routine emissions tests must be kept for 6 or 8 years. Copies of instructions must be submitted to EPA. Averaging banking and trading records. Reporting of sales volumes. Covers through 2002 model vehicles.

Subpart B: Test Procedures 86.107 Reporting requirement. Gas chromatograph records required for evaporative emission test.

86.113 Reporting requirement. Availability and use of alternate fuels inuse

86.129 Recordkeeping requirement. Fuel temperature profile determination.

86.142 Recordkeeping requirement. Exhaust emission test.

86.155 Recordkeeping requirement. Refueling test.

86.162 Reporting requirement. Request for alternate air conditioning test simulations.

86.163 Reporting requirement. Substantiation of alternate air conditioning test simulation correlation.

Subpart E: New Motorcycles, General Provisions 86.412 Reporting requirement. Submission of maintenance instructions and other documents that relate to emissions.

86.414 Reporting requirement. Submission of vehicle identification numbers, description of numbering system. 27 86.415 Reporting requirement. Submission of annual production reports.

86.416 Reporting requirement. Application for certification.

86.421 Reporting requirement. Election to test additional vehicles.

86.423 Reporting requirement. Submission of optional test data.

86.427 Reporting requirement. Emission testing. 86.428 Reporting requirement. Request for additional scheduled maintenance.

86.429 Reporting requirement. Request for unscheduled test vehicle maintenance.

86.431 Reporting requirement. Submission of all test data required.

86.432 Reporting requirement. Election to use optional method to determine deterioration factor using outliers.

86.434 Reporting requirement. Request for retest of confirmatory test.

86.435 Reporting requirement. Election of additional service accumulation.

86.437 Reporting requirement. Certification of compliance.

86.438 Reporting requirement. Amendments to the application.

86.439 Reporting requirement. Amendments to the application; alternate method.

86.440 Recordkeeping requirement. Maintenance of certification vehicle data for six years, one year for test data.

86.445 Reporting requirement. Application for hardship exemption.

86 446 Reporting requirement. Application for extension of deadlines for small volume manufacturers.

86.449 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Averaging, banking and trading. 28 Subpart F: New Motorcycles, Emissions Regulations 86.513 Reporting requirement. Availability of alternate fuels.

86.542 Recordkeeping requirement. Motorcycle certification testing.

Subpart G: Selective Enforcement Auditing 86.603 Reporting requirement. Assembly line data 86.604 Reporting requirement. Request for reconsideration on use of EPA data. 86.605 Recordkeeping requirement. Vehicle production data.

86.607 Reporting requirement. Request for alternate procedures, description of production changes. 86.609 Reporting requirement. Submission of test results and supporting information.

86.612 Reporting requirement. Nonconformance, corrective action.

86.615 Reporting requirement. Request for confidential treatment of information submitted.

Subpart H: General Provisions for In Use Emissions 86.709 Reporting requirement. Request to use alternate production figures.

Subpart J: Certification Fees [ applicable to applications before 7/ 12/ 2004, including some still active under import provisions of 40 CFR 85.1509]

86.908 Reporting requirement. Request for fee waiver/ refund 86.909 Reporting requirement. Applicant, product identification, fee category.

Subpart K: Selective Enforcement Auditing of Light Duty Trucks 86.1003 Reporting requirement. Assembly line data 86.1004 Reporting requirement. Request for reconsideration on use of EPA data.

86.1005 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Maintenance and submission of vehicle production data. 29 86.1007 Reporting requirement. Request for alternate selection method.

86.1009 Reporting requirement. Submission of test results and supporting information.

86.1012 Reporting requirement. Nonconformance, corrective action.

86.1015 Reporting requirement. Request for confidential treatment of submitted information.

Subpart L: Nonperformance Penalties for Light Duty Trucks 86.1106 Recordkeeping requirement. Production compliance audit information, recordkeeping.

86.1107 Reporting requirement. Request for reconsideration on use of EPA data. 86.1108 Recordkeeping requirement. Nonconformance penalty testing.

86.1110 Reporting requirement. Request for alternate test procedures.

86.1113 Reporting requirement. Nonconformance penalty calculation. 86.1114 Reporting requirement. Nonconformance, corrective action.

Subpart O: Short Test Procedures for LDVs, LDTs.

86.1427 Reporting requirement. Request for alternate short test procedure.

86.1442 Reporting requirement. Short test reports.

Subpart P: Idle Test Procedures for LDTs 86.1542 Reporting requirement. Idle test reports.

Subpart R: General NLEV Provisions 86.1705 Reporting requirement. Manufacturer's election of NLEV program.

86.1707 Reporting requirement. Manufacturer's decision to opt out of NLEV program.

86.1712 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Production reports, maintenance of records. 30 86.1721 Reporting requirement. Identification and production information, NLEV vehicles.

86.1723 Reporting requirement. Emission data, NLEV vehicles.

86.1734 Reporting requirement. Notification of production vehicle changes.

Subpart S: General Tier 2 Provisions 86.1805 Reporting requirement. Petition for alternative useful life definition.

86.1806 Reporting requirement. Request for alternative on board diagnostic system requirements.

86.1809 Reporting requirement. Submission of detailed calibration information. 86.1811 Reporting requirement. Election of alternate standards and phasein requirements.

86.1817 Reporting requirement. Election of emission limits, submission of annual report.

86.1823 Reporting requirement. Description of durability demonstration program.

86.1826 Reporting requirement. Election of assigned deterioration factors.

86.1829 Reporting requirement. Request for waivers, data substitution.

86.1839 Reporting requirement. Substantiation of data substitution.

86.1840 Reporting requirement. Request for special test procedures.

86.1842 Reporting requirement. Notification of running changes.

86.1843 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Application for certification and general information requirements.

86.1844 Reporting requirement. Product description, test data requirements.

86.1845 Reporting requirement. In use testing verification requirements.

86.1846 Reporting requirement. Submit confirmatory testing plan when such testing is required. 31 86.1847 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, in use and confirmatory testing.

86.1862 Reporting requirement. NOx averaging recordkeeping requirements.

Part 600 Subpart A: General Fuel Economy Provisions 600.005 Recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy data vehicles.

600.006 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy data vehicles.

600.007 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy data, imported vehicles. 600.010 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Minimum fuel economy.

Subpart B: Fuel Economy Test Procedures 600.113 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel analysis. Subpart C: Calculating Fuel Economy Values 600.206 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy data, dual fuel vehicles.

600.207 Reporting requirement. Model type fuel economy calculations.

600.209 Reporting requirement. Fuel economy label calculations.

Subpart D: Fuel Economy Labeling 600.305 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy label.

600.306 Reporting requirement. Fuel economy label information.

600.307 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy label information.

600.310 Reporting requirement. High altitude fuel economy label, manufacturer request.

600.311 Reporting requirement. Range of fuel economy. 32 600.312 Reporting and recordkeeping requirement. Fuel economy label calculations.

600.313 Reporting requirement. Fuel economy information.

600.314 Reporting requirement. Correction of fuel economy labels.

Subpart F: Procedures for Determining Manufacturer's Average Fuel Economy 600.507 Reporting requirement. Revised fuel economy data.

600.509 Reporting requirement. Voluntary fuel economy data.

600.510 Reporting requirement. Calculation of average fuel economy, adjustments.

600.512 Reporting requirement. Model year report.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                 NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                              2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD                            ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									          	OFFICE OF 										AIR AND RADIATION

July 18, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Meeting with Ford on May 20, 2011

FROM:	Don Kopinski

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on May 20, 2011 between Ford and EPA staff.  The following people attended:

      Ford:  Cynthia Wiliams, Ken McAlinden              EPA: Byron Bunker, Angela Cullen, Cle Jackson, Chuck Moulis, Bob Peavyhouse,  Don Kopinski

The discussion focused on potential flexibility provisions for vocational gasoline engines, analytically derived CO2,  extending HD GHG mileage limit on certification vehicles, using part 1065 for gasoline engines, and Ford HDV configurations.  The non-confidential portions of presentations made by Ford staff are attached.

Attachments (2)