0782ss55

DRAFT

Supporting Statement
for
Information Collection Request

Motor Vehicle Emissions:

Revisions to Certification of Alternative Fuels Conversions

EPA ICR 0783.55

April 2010

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

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

Part A SUBMISSION Section 1: Identification Of The Information Collection

1(a) Title And Number Of The Information Collection

Motor Vehicle Emissions: Revisions to Certification of Alternative Fuels Conversions; EPA ICR number 0783.55, OMB control number 2060-0104.

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes designed to simplify and lessen the burdens for manufacturers seeking approval to introduce into commerce in the U.S. light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines that have been converted for use of fuels that the original models were not designed for, such as from gasoline to liquid propane gas (LPG) or compressed natural gas (CNG). This ICR covers the light-duty portion of the proposal. These applications are currently administratively handled as a part of EPA’s motor vehicle and engine certification program, covered by the ICR 0783 series. This ICR addresses the anticipated paperwork burden reduction of the proposal within the context of the existing baseline from OMB 2060-0104 (ICR 0783.54), which was approved on August 31, 2009.

These changes would start taking effect with 2011 model year light-duty vehicles and trucks or upon the effective date of the final rule. Starting then, manufacturers will be given expanded options for submitting simplified applications. ICRs normally have a three year time horizon. This ICR will cover the expected paperwork burden changes for the three years after the effective date of the final rule.

Information collected under the existing alternative fuels conversion program consists of test results and related submissions under existing procedures for the EPA light-duty vehicle certification program. All information from converter applicants is currently submitted electronically directly to the Verify system. Subject to confidentiality claims, this information is made available to interested parties upon request. Emission test information is available on the internet.

The burden analysis in this ICR differs from the cost analysis in the preamble to the proposed rule in important respects. First, ICRs are concerned with paperwork burdens, a subset of all business costs: this ICR covers the costs and labor hours of providing information to EPA, including both the paperwork itself and the costs and labor to develop the information, such as testing to provide test results, and facilities to carry out that testing. It is not concerned with the costs of compliance in general, nor with general business overhead or profits. The preamble, on the other hand, focuses on costs incurred in developing conversions that comply with the Clean Air Act and subsequent certification applications through contracts by converters with testing companies, which include overhead and profit elements not counted in the 0783 series. The analysis in this ICR uses the traditional capital cost, O&M cost, and labor cost assumptions in this ICR series, so that, for example, facility costs that would be recovered as part of a consulting firm's contract are here allocated to capital costs. Second, the preamble focuses on the burden for a single converter enterprise of interest (and generalizes this to four such enterprises). This ICR attempts to generalize the analysis to the industry as a whole. Third, the ICR does not cover development costs associated with compliance with the Clean Air Act, but only the paperwork-related costs once such a conversion has been achieved to the point where the converter submits an application for certification.

The existing baseline estimates that certification applications for 36 test groups from five converter respondents are submitted annually. The most recent model year data available (model year 2008) shows 18 light-duty vehicle conversions. This ICR adjusts the baseline to 18 conversions and calculates industry savings against that number. The analysis also gives the change in the 0783 ICR overall collection.

These test groups consist of conversion kits that apply to a specific certified OEM (original equipment manufacturer) vehicle engine family, or in some cases group of families. As with OEM certifications, the biggest paperwork cost component for converters is testing. However, estimating testing costs under the existing regulations has been difficult because the alt. fuel converter program encompasses a diverse range of circumstances. Many of the tests are currently waived in certain situations. For example, currently, evaporative testing may or may not be waived depending on whether a closed fuel system is used. Exhaust and evaporative emission testing can be waived for dual-fueled gasoline/LPG or gasoline/CNG vehicles if the modification doesn’t increase the weight more than 500 pounds and no increase in emissions is expected. (Assumptions for dealing with these complexities both in the existing program and under the proposal are discussed in Section 6.)

The current baseline applied to 18 test groups estimates an industry total paperwork cost of $137,856. As with the main light-duty program, this does not include development costs (such as repeated testing needed to perfect a conversion kit that can meet emission and OBD standards), which are not directly mandated by the Clean Air Act but which can be considerable. Other elements of the alt. fuels certification process covered by this ICR are listed in Part 4 below, including paperwork filing burdens, which are budgeted in the ICR as O&M costs and labor hours. Converted vehicles are also, as with other certified vehicles, subject to EPA's confirmatory testing program, durability demonstration, Vehicle Emission Control Information (VECI) labeling, defect and voluntary emission recall reporting, and other light-duty requirements (all covered in ICR 0783). In addition, they are subject to EPA’s certification fee requirements (ICR2080; OMB 2060-0545) but burden changes in this program is de minimis (the number of fee forms affected is small and will be reflected in the next fees ICR renewal). All burden elements in this ICR are in the Emissions (Certification) IC.

The proposed changes will recognize three classes of conversions: to (1) vehicles that are new or relatively new, (2) vehicles within EPA’s definition of useful life but which are neither new nor relatively new (“intermediate life vehicles”), and (3) vehicles that are outside EPA’s definition of useful life. For the newest vehicles, certification will still be required, but with some additional flexibilities and expansion of options. Conversion of intermediate life vehicles will be not be certified but audited through reporting of a simplified testing demonstration that the converted vehicle family still meets emissions standards certified for the OEM vehicle family. For conversion of outside useful life vehicles EPA intends to finalize a single demonstration requirement but is seeking comment on three options.

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 set under section 202(a)(1) of the Act. A manufacturer must have a certificate before vehicles may be legally introduced into commerce. To insure compliance with the Act, EPA reviews product information and manufacturer test results; EPA also tests some vehicles to confirm manufacturer results.

Section 203 of the Clean Air Act contains “anti-tampering” provisions prohibiting alteration of OEM vehicle components relevant to the vehicle’s certification under the Act. Regulations at 40 CFR, Part 85, Subpart F, provide exemption for aftermarket conversion systems from these tampering prohibitions for those converters complying with the regulations of that Part. Under Subpart F, these exemptions are currently administered through a certification process that is modeled on the OEM certification provisions: converters submit certification requests for engine families, and those that satisfy EPA’s regulations upon review are granted certificates of conformity for one model year.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The information collection under the rule would be used to determine whether the new requirements have been complied with by means of the revised certification and compliance program.

Section 3: Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a) Nonduplication

The information collection, reporting, and storage provisions of the proposed rule rely to the maximum extent possible on EPA’s existing certification program, while simplifying that program to reflect the needs of this industry.

Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information collection. EPA-CISD (Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division) is currently using, for light-duty vehicles, a new information management system (Verify), 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

Public Notice of this ICR was provided in the preamble to the proposed rule.

3(c) Consultations

The proposed regulations, including the cost analysis that is reflected in this ICR, were developed based on experience with similar regulations developed in the past in close consultation with the affected industry. In designing this proposal EPA sought and received significant input and feedback from the fuel conversion community.

In preparing the proposed rule, EPA made use of consultations with several converters and an independent test lab working in the regulated industry:

Their comments have been considered in developing 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 information is currently 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 normally possible. However, this rule would replace the annual application and compliance process with a one-time submittal for intermediate and outside useful life vehicles. Furthermore, for new and relatively new vehicles, when a vehicle design is “carried over” to a subsequent model year, the amount of new information required is substantially reduced.

3(e) General Guidelines

Manufacturers are required to keep some records for periods longer than three years This requirement stems from the statutory requirement that manufacturers warrant some items for periods longer than 3 years.

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

3(f) Confidentiality

Information submitted by manufacturers is held as confidential until the specific vehicle to which it pertains is available for purchase. After vehicles are available, most information associated with the manufacturer/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/NASIC Codes

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

Industry

335312A 336312 336322 336399 454312 485310

Alternative fuel vehicle converters

^A North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

The information and reporting burden associated with this rule occurs within the context of EPA’s motor vehicle certification and compliance program. Current regulations require converters to submit emissions information to EPA in conjunction with this program. Converters of newer vehicles must submit an application for emission certification prior to production. Intermediately aged vehicle converters will submit a simplified testing demonstration without the burdens of the formal certification application process. For vehicles converted outside their useful life, regulation will be through an information submission that the conversion is technically viable and will not increase emissions. These reporting formats describe the major aspects of the proposed product line, technical details of the emission control systems, and the results of any required tests to indicate compliance with the emissions limitations. The reports and supporting test results are reviewed and, if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued, the applicant is notified of possible noncompliance with anti-tampering provisions, or additional post-production information is requested.

New/revised data items:

At the time of certification:

For all vehicles:

• expanded conversion test or "demonstration" groups

• exemption from HCHO testing for conversions to CNG and LPG

• conversion factors for calculating NMOG for conversions to CNG and LPG

• new VECI label requirement describing test group, mileage, and date

For intermediate-age and outside useful-life age vehicles (25%)

• online notification and test result report rather than application for certification (savings in “paperwork” burden) or compliance “demonstration” for outside useful-life conversions

• description of OBD compliance strategy or OBD demonstration rather than current OBD test results

(ii) Respondent Activities

While there is no “typical” converter respondent, all converters must describe their product and supply test data and other information to verify compliance. In some cases the proposal would replace the current application and certification process with a notification and audit process. Applicants for certification submit certification fees, usually “reduced fees” set at 1% of the estimated retail sales value of the conversion package, including labor. Converters or installers of conversion kits must install a second VECI label on converted vehicles. Converters 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.

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

1. Agency Activities

The test data used by EPA to determine compliance with emissions standards are derived from vehicle testing done by vehicle converters who report their own test data to EPA, and at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. EPA staff review applications (or notifications or demonstrations), issue certificates, and oversee the program.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

All information from converter applicants will be submitted electronically directly to the Verify system by the effective date of the new rule. By guidance letter CISD-09-14, vehicle converters are required to submit applications for certification through Verify beginning with the 2010 model year. The rule makes no changes in this reporting system, only changing the format and content of some of the information reported within it.

All information received by EPA is subject to review. Data submitted are screened to determine that the test results insure compliance with emission and fuel economy standards. Narrative descriptions of the proposed product line are checked to verify that the appropriate "worst case" vehicles have been tested. Except for projected sales and a very limited amount of proprietary product information, all information is available to the public as soon as the vehicle is offered for sale. Emission data are available on the internet; other information is available upon request under the Freedom of Information Act.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

Converters already enjoy various exemptions and special provisions tailored to their small entity status and special business needs in contrast to original vehicle manufacturers, such as use of assigned deterioration factors, exemption from the manufacturers’ in-use vehicle testing program (IUVP) and availability of reduced certification fees. This proposal further extends this flexibility in numerous ways detailed in the proposal and summarized in this Supporting Statement.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Currently, information must be submitted for each “model year” that a manufacturer intends to convert vehicles. Under the proposal, only the newest vehicles will be required to renew annually, but all categories will file an end-of-year report (as do light-duty manufacturers). For emissions purposes, a “model year” is statutorily defined as the annual production period of a manufacturer, as decided by the Administrator, that includes January 1 of that calendar year; or that calendar year if the manufacturer does not have an annual production period. 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 production plans.

Section 6: Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

The following estimates of reduced burden use baselines and methodologies developed in the process of continuing updates of the 0783 ICR series, including the last renewal (ICR 0783.54), and the proposed greenhouse gasses rule (ICR 0783.56). The reasoning behind estimates of decreased burden from the current baseline are given below and summarized in Section 6(f).

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden (Hours)

As noted above, the number of converter test groups covered by the ICR is subject to small number fluctuations. The baseline in the last renewal (ICR 0783.54) was 36 test groups; in the renewal three years before that (ICR 0783.47) it was 15. Following normal practice, the baseline is here adjusted to reflect the most current information available; we count 18 light-duty conversion test groups for Model Year 2008. The Emissions IC will reflect this adjustment. The discussions below compare the burdens on 18 families before and after the proposal.

Within the converter program under the adjusted baseline, the respondent hours burden decrease for the Light-Duty Vehicle Emissions Information Collection reflects reduced labor hours associated with conducting tests and reduced reporting. This is largely due to the broader definition of test groups, since this definition determines how many tests must be conducted. The paperwork reporting burdens in particular are significantly reduced for intermediate and out of useful life conversions. As converters are a very small subset of the current light-duty baseline (currently 18 out of 427 test groups/engine families), the decrease in burden is correspondingly small; but for vehicle converters the hour savings are significant (from 14,869 hours down to 7,796 hours, a savings of over 40%).

In particular, the number of test groups requiring any reporting under this rule is estimated to be reduced by 25 percent. This correspondingly reduces the labor hours associated with conducting emissions tests (including preparation costs, FTP tests, NMOG tests and HFET tests), OBD compliance reporting, confirmatory testing costs (including shipment costs), and paperwork reporting and recordkeeping costs associated with preparing this information in any of the required formats and submitting it to EPA for review and saving it for possible submission to EPA upon request. Intermediate and beyond useful life conversion test groups are estimated to achieve an additional 80 percent reduction in paperwork reporting for those qualifying.

The ICR includes a minor startup cost for implementing new labeling requirements. All labor hours associated with startup costs are treated as capital/startup costs, so they are included under that heading, following EPA guidance (EPA ICR Handbook, Rev. 11/05, p. A-31).

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

1. Estimating labor costs

Labor costs for testing follow the testing labor cost assumptions of ICR 0783.54 and average out to $59.07 per hour across management, technical, and secretarial categories. This figure, which was initially based on the fees rule cost study of EPA laboratory expenses, matches very closely with an analysis based on rates for engineering managers, mechanical engineers, and secretaries (except legal, medical, and executive) from the May 2005 BLS National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_336100.htm , accessed August 22, 2006). With a 160% overhead multiplier, these are $81.38, $49.71, and $33.57, respectively. The labor cost analysis may be updated for the final ICR.

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs

Operation and Maintenance costs are the non-labor costs associated with conducting the new tests that are anticipated for the full model year after the effective date of the new regulations. The O&M costs for conducting emissions tests follow the assumptions in prior ICRs in this series, with an improved figure for NMOG and HCHO analysis, totaling about $4,000 per vehicle, with another $3,600 for OBD compliance and $2,000 for each confirmatory test. The estimate also includes O&M items for evaporative emissions testing, and reporting and recordkeeping, with the baseline total coming to about $10,000 per activity (test group). Applied to the industry, the baseline O&M cost is $121,541 annually. The proposal reduces this figure by $44,650, down to $76,891. This is primarily due to 1) reduction in the number of test groups by 25%; and 2) savings of $1,750 in NMOG and HCHO testing per test group.

(iii) Start-up Costs

“Startup” costs are one-time costs to implement the new requirements in the proposal that are applicable to the next model year conversions being certified or by the respondent converters after the effective date of the final rule. These startup burdens fall into two categories.

First are startup costs to redesign the VECI label. This burden is an add-on to well established reporting requirements: manufacturers already submit similar label data to EPA. Once the new label templates are in place, we anticipate no increase in burden for this startup item. This part of the estimate costs new analysis and coding for 18 test groups, reduced to 14 by the new rule. This is a small item, less than $10,000 for the industry, and is annualized and discounted at 7% in the cost estimate.

Second are capital costs associated with the testing requirements. Because manufacturers vary widely in their existing testing facilities, their excess capacities, their work shift arrangements and availabilities, the real estate cost and land availabilities for hypothetical expansions, and their contractual arrangements with other testing facilities, CISD has for many year now used the approximation that a facility capable of performing 750 FTP/HFET tests per year costs $4,000,000 and allocated this cost to each testing increment. This cost is then allocated over ten years and discounted at 7%. This methodology is considered conservative, because it assumes no excess capacity. Similarly, evaporative facilities are costed at $3,000,000 to conduct 900 evaporative tests a year. While most converters work through contractors whose contract costs do not break down costs in this manner, for consistency the analysis in the Certification IC series is continued here.

Primarily due to the reduction in the number of test groups (slightly offset by the new labeling startup) he total non-depreciated capital costs for the conversion program of $114,600 are reduced by $45,417 to $69,183.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden

The emission and fuel economy compliance programs are primarily administered by EPA’s Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division and Laboratory Operations Division. Approximately 47.5 full time employee equivalents are directly involved in the combined emission and fuel economy light-duty, motorcycle, and other, secondary programs; their cost is approximately $5.9 million, including benefits but not overhead. EPA also participates in a program whereby the agency contracts with 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 who work directly on these programs is approximately $0.23 million, excluding overhead. Overhead percentage for the entire division is approximately 16.9%, yielding an estimated total agency labor cost of $7.17 million. The total non-capital costs for the light-duty and motorcycle programs, including direct and indirect labor, operations and maintenance, and overhead, is estimated as $11.14 million for FY 2007.

Implementation of the new alternative fuels rule will be carried out by existing staff. Other ongoing database management, oversight, and certification activities are part of the fuel economy and emissions program Agency baseline. All EPA labor estimates are based on Office of Personnel Management draft annual pay rates effective January, 2008, with a 1.6 multiplier for overhead based on EPA’s latest fees cost allocation study (1.37 indirect program cost overhead times 1.16 overall EPA overhead). This estimate does not include Agency burdens incurred prior to the effective date of the rule, such as costs of developing the rule and preliminary consultations with converters.

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 converter industry, there is no typical or average respondent.)

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

(i) Respondent Tally

[a] Overall Emissions IC

This analysis is against the Emissions IC baseline in ICR 0783.54. EPA has another rulemaking underway (Revisions to Reduce Emissions of Greenhouse Gases; EPA ICR 0783.56) which will result in other changes.

[1] Existing authorization

RESPONDENTS 35

BURDEN HOURS 362,033

LABOR COST $6,308,800

OPERATING COST $5,929,702

CAPITALIZED COST $2,256,127

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST $8,185,829

[2] After proposal

RESPONDENTS 35

BURDEN HOURS 340,091

LABOR COST $5,054,396

OPERATING COST $5,763,511

CAPITALIZED COST $2,233,795

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST $7,997,306

[3] Reduction in burden

BURDEN HOURS -21,942

LABOR COST -$1,254,404

OPERATING COST -$166,191

CAPITALIZED COST -$22,332

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST -$188,523

[b] Alternative Fuels Converters

[1] Existing baseline

RESPONDENTS 5

FAMILIES 36

BURDEN HOURS 29,738

LABOR COST $1,756,606

OPERATING COST $243,082

CAPITALIZED COST $32,630

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST $275,712

[2] After proposal

RESPONDENTS 5

FAMILIES (75% OF 18) 14

BURDEN HOURS 7,796

LABOR COST $502,202

OPERATING COST $76,891

CAPITALIZED COST $10,298

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST $87,189

[3] Reduction in burden

BURDEN HOURS -21,942

LABOR COST -$1,254,404

OPERATING COST -$166,191

CAPITALIZED COST -$22,332

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST -$188,523

[4] Reduction in burden applied to a hypothetical pre-proposal 18 family baseline

BURDEN HOURS -7,073

LABOR COST -$376,101

OPERATING COST -$44,650

CAPITALIZED COST -$6,017

TOTAL NON-LABOR COST -$50,667

(ii) Agency Tally

EMPLOYEES 47.5

CONTRACT LABOR COST $0.27 million

COST $11.1 million

6(f) Reasons for change in burden

The burden change is from changes in the baseline number of test groups and reductions in the capital and operations and maintenance costs and labor hours associated with implementing the new programs detailed in this draft ICR.

6(g) Burden Statement

The table in Section 6(e)(i)[b][2] presents the total estimated burden for the alternative fuels conversion light-duty program after the proposed rule: approximately 7,796 hours per year, with total annual capitalized and O&M costs estimated at $87,189. These represent a savings of 21,942 hours and $188,523 over the existing alternative fuels light-duty baseline. The annual costs and hours for information collection activities by a given manufacturer under any of the options in this proposed rule depend upon manufacturer-specific variables, such as the number of different test groups and the number of vehicles tested. The estimated number of likely respondent manufacturers is 5. The responses will be submitted annually and occasionally as a part of the existing EPA certification program.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is also (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0299 and OMB Control Number 2060-0104 in any correspondence.

2