Agricultural Marketing Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Food Safety and Inspection Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Prisons Bureau
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Interim rule; correction.
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is amending the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) regulation to provide specifically for prioritizing limited program funds in favor of the “project area” portion of BCAP. CCC is also correcting errors in the regulation.
We invite you to submit comments on this interim rule. In your comment, include the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) and the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the
•
•
•
All written comments will be available for public inspection at the above address during business hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
Kelly Novak,
CCC published a final rule on October 27, 2010 (75 FR 66202-66243) implementing BCAP as authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill, Pub. L. 110-246). Section 9001 of the 2008 Farm Bill authorized such sums as necessary for BCAP. The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-212) enacted on July 29, 2010, limited BCAP funding to $552 million in fiscal year 2010 and $432 million in fiscal year 2011. The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10, referred to as the 2011 Appropriations Act) enacted on April 15, 2011, reduced further the total amount of money available for BCAP in FY 2011 to $112 million.
BCAP has two parts—one is for `project areas' to support the establishment of new sources of bioenergy. CCC provides establishment and annual payments to agricultural and forest land owners for the production of new crops for bioenergy and bio-based products. The other part of BCAP is for matching payments for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation (CHST) of existing sources of biomass. The limited funding available for BCAP means that not all BCAP requests can be funded. This interim rule explicitly provides a priority for funding establishment and annual payments for project area activities because such activities will produce the greatest long term good in BCAP by providing an on-going supply of new biomass. CHST would only be funded if resources are available after funding all eligible project area applications. The rule also enables prioritization among project area proposals if eligible requests exceed available funding. Future funding for BCAP could make such prioritizing unnecessary.
Under prioritization, FSA will issue a notice inviting project area proposals by a specified deadline. Applicants will be given at least 30 days to prepare their proposals. After the application period closes, FSA will review all proposals as a batch against a set of selection criteria, including, but not limited to, the following criteria as specified in 7 CFR 1450.202(a):
(1) The dry tons of the eligible crops proposed to be produced in the proposed project area and the probability that such crops will be used for BCAP purposes;
(2) The dry tons of renewable biomass projected to be available from sources other than the eligible crops grown on contract acres;
(3) The anticipated economic impact in the proposed project area;
(4) The opportunity for producers and local investors to participate in the ownership of the biomass conversion facility in the proposed project area;
(5) The participation rate by beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers;
(6) The impact on soil, water, and related resources;
(7) The variety in biomass production approaches within a project area, including agronomic conditions, harvest and postharvest practices, and monoculture and polyculture crop mixes; and
(8) The range of eligible crops among project areas.
This interim rule also makes technical changes to the existing regulations to clarify a provision dealing with the eligibility of woody materials from forest lands, and corrects the use of the word “chapter” instead of “title,” and the word “applies” instead of “apply.” The clarification of the woody material eligibility provision is needed because as inadvertently written in the previous final rule, any herbaceous biomass (such as switchgrass) would not qualify for a matching payment unless it was removed to reduce forest fire, disease or insect infestation, or restore forest ecosystem health—conditions that are intended for woody biomass outside of BCAP project areas. The clarifying change would not affect woody biomass eligibility; rather it ensures that all herbaceous biomass (not just crop residues) qualifies for matching payments.
In addition, during our review of the final rule, we discovered a few inconsistencies between the text in the
Because this rule addresses an immediate need produced by a change in the funding level for BCAP and otherwise makes technical changes, it has been determined that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. Therefore, prior comment and a delay in the effective date of this rule are not required by the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), or by the memorandum of the Secretary of Agriculture published in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and has reviewed this rule. A summary of the cost benefit analysis is provided below and is available from the contact information listed above.
This interim rule will allow CCC to prioritize available funds for the establishment of BCAP crops to maximize the benefits of BCAP. For FY2011, $196 million was initially made available to CCC, reflecting the estimate in the cost-benefit analysis accompanying the BCAP final rule and the authority in the 2008 Farm Bill for “such sums as are necessary” from CCC to operate the program. The 2011 Appropriations Act provides a final level of funding for BCAP in FY 2011 of $112 million, a reduction of $84 million from the previously available amount. In 2011, CCC received over 40 project area proposals well exceeding $160 million in funding need, therefore exceeding available funding. Given the limits in appropriated funds and the prioritization provisions of this interim rule, the cost of BCAP is therefore estimated to be $112 million in 2011. In FY 2011, $83.2 million of the total annual cost is estimated to be establishment and annual payments for project areas including technical assistance, with the remaining costs comprising CHST payments and a 1 percent reserve.
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this interim rule because CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. As noted above in the Notice and Comment section, CCC is using the good cause justification of the Administrative Procedures Act to issue an interim rule effective on publication with an opportunity for comment.
The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). The technical corrections identified in this interim rule do not change the structure or goals of BCAP and can be considered simply administrative in nature. Therefore, CCC has determined that NEPA does not apply to this interim rule and no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement will be prepared.
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and direct Federal development. This rule neither provides Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development; it does not provide either grants or cooperative agreements. Therefore, this program is not subject to Executive Order 12372.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” The provisions of this rule will not have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations, or policies that conflict with such provision or which otherwise impede their full implementation. The rule will not have retroactive effect. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding this rule, all administrative remedies must be exhausted.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule will not have any substantial direct effect on States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor would this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.
This rule has been reviewed for compliance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” The policies contained in this rule do not have tribal implications that preempt tribal law.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) for State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. In addition, CCC is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Therefore, this interim rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
This rule has not been determined to be major under SBREFA (Pub. L. 104-121). SBREFA normally requires that an agency delay the effective date of a major rule for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Section 808 of SBREFA allows an agency to make a major regulation effective immediately if the agency
The information collection required for this rule has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0560-0082.
CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government Information and services, and for other purposes.
Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Energy, Environmental protection, Grant programs—agriculture, Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance.
For the reasons discussed above, this rule corrects and amends 7 CFR part 1450 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 8111.
(f) Subject to the availability of funds and all other eligibility provisions of this part, this part provides the terms, conditions and requirements of BCAP. In the event that CCC determines that available funds are insufficient to accommodate the demand for establishment and annual payments as well as all potential applications for matching payments for collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible material, without any advance notice other than that stated here, CCC may prioritize the expenditure of program funds in favor of funding for the selection of BCAP project areas and the establishment and annual payments related to those project areas, and may make such other priorities in approvals that will, in the determination of the Deputy Administrator, advance the purposes of BCAP.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is amending its regulations by revising the provisions applicable to the licensing and approval processes for byproduct, source and special nuclear materials licenses, and irradiators. The changes will clarify the definitions of “construction” and “commencement of construction” with respect to materials licensing actions conducted under the NRC's regulations. The NRC is adopting these changes to further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the licensing and approval processes for future materials license applications, as well as to eliminate certain inconsistencies that currently exist within the NRC's regulations with respect to the use and definition of the terms “construction” or “commencement of construction” for certain materials licensees for purposes of its environmental reviews.
This final rule is effective on November 14, 2011.
You can access publicly available documents related to this document using the following methods:
•
•
•
Ms. Tracey Stokes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1064; e-mail:
On July 27, 2010 (75 FR 43865), the NRC published a proposed rule, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licenses.” The rule proposed to amend the NRC's regulations to clarify the definitions of “construction” and “commencement of construction” applicable to the licensing and approval processes for byproduct, source and special nuclear materials licenses, and irradiators. The
The inconsistencies that exist arose after the NRC modified the definition of “construction” applicable to nuclear power reactors and to the NRC environmental review regulations, but did not make comparable changes to its materials licensing regulations. On October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416; corrected at 73 FR 22786 (April 28, 2008)), the NRC had amended the definition of “construction” for utilization and production facilities and amended the limited work authorization (LWA) procedures for nuclear power plants (LWA Rulemaking). As part of that rulemaking, the Commission revised the scope of activities that are considered construction and for which a construction permit, combined license, or LWA is necessary; specified the scope of construction activities that may be performed under an LWA; changed the review and approval process for LWA requests; and clarified the environmental review process for these activities.
Since the completion of the LWA Rulemaking, activities that do not constitute construction under Title 10 of the
The proposed rule was published on July 27, 2010 (75 FR 43865), with a 60-day comment period, which ended on September 27, 2010. The comment period was subsequently reopened and extended to November 29, 2010 (75 FR 60341; September 30, 2010). The NRC received 12 public comments on the proposed rule. The commenters include four members of the public, three industry organizations, two public interest and consumer advocacy groups,
Two of the comments received generally supported the NRC's decision to issue the proposed rule. Three of the comments, while critical of the proposed rule or its applicability to certain materials licenses at all, provided specific comment with respect to the proposed language. Seven of the comments received were opposed to the proposed rule, stating as their main objection their belief that the proposed rule is contrary to, and would negatively impact the NRC's implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and other Federal environmental or conservancy statutes such as, the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
The proposed rule also solicited comments on the utility of an LWA process specific to materials licenses. Four of the twelve commenters addressed this issue, and of the four, one was opposed, claiming that such a process would violate NEPA, and the remaining three indicated that there was some merit in the endeavor, and provided comments on the potential designs of such a process.
The NRC has carefully considered the public comments received. The comments have been organized by topic (
The NRC, through this rulemaking, is not authorizing any individual to engage in specific site preparation activities. Rather, the NRC is identifying those specific activities that are not subject to its regulatory authority. The private site preparation activities that occur, while not subject to NRC authority, in all likelihood are subject to regulatory authority of another Federal, State or local agency, through either a permitting or licensing process. Such Federal, State or local authority with permitting or licensing jurisdiction over private site preparation activities would be the proper entity to consider concerns pertaining to the activities, including the potential triggering of NEPA or State environmental review requirements as appropriate. The NRC would consider any request from another Federal, State or local agency with authority over the private action for the NRC to be a cooperating agency on a case-by-case basis within the scope of the NRC's jurisdictional authority and any applicable Memorandum of Understanding.
Four commenters provided comments in response to the NRC's question regarding whether an LWA process is appropriate. One commenter opposed such a process, claiming that an LWA process for materials licenses would result in segmentation of the major Federal action and would violate NEPA. The remaining three commenters were supportive of an LWA process.
One commenter states that an LWA process would permit only limited construction activities and the environmental impacts associated with activities would be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before the LWAs would be issued. However, that commenter also suggests that the NRC lacks the statutory authority to restrict the construction activities of some materials licensees, although the commenter did not identify which materials licensees were affected. This commenter offered suggested changes to the proposed rule. As an initial matter, the commenter suggests that the NRC revise the proposed rule to eliminate the concept of “commencement of construction.” This particular proposal is based, in part, on the commenter's belief that the NRC lacks the statutory authority necessary to prohibit a materials license applicant from engaging in construction. As is discussed further in Section III, Discussion, the NRC disagrees with this proposition. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), confers on the NRC the authority to establish by rule and regulation such standards as the NRC “deems necessary or desirable” to ensure the public health and safety from radiological hazards, including limitations on an applicant's or licensee's ability to engage in construction.
The remaining two commenters address an LWA-like process that would be applicable primarily to
With respect to the proposed rule, the commenters stated that the proposed rule is too narrowly interpreted to meet the needs of ISR licensees. The commenters propose that the list of items that are not construction be modified to include: Wellfields (injection, production/extraction, and monitor well networks); administrative and other buildings and site roads and infrastructure intended to handle or process AEA material; and the central processing plant. The NRC is not adopting the commenters' proposal. Most of the listed construction activities when complete would be utilized to handle, use, process, or store radioactive material; therefore, such activities would be viewed as having a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or common defense and security, and hence would be considered construction. The only exception would be with respect to administrative and other buildings, and site roads and infrastructure. The commenter indicates that this category of actions would include not only construction of buildings that would eventually be used to handle AEA materials, but also construction of buildings and facilities that are not specific to the NRC license or radioactive materials. This latter
With respect to their proposed LWA-like process, these commenters also suggest a three-tier process that permits certain pre-licensing construction activities. Tier 1 would identify those construction activities that could occur prior to licensing without staff approval. Tier 2 would identify those construction activities that could occur prior to licensing with staff's approval. Tier 3 would identify those construction activities that could only occur after licensing.
Given the diverse nature of materials licensees, the NRC would need to develop a thorough and comprehensive LWA program that would be available to all materials licensees to the extent practicable and adequate to ensure that the radiological health and safety of the public and common defense and security is protected. There is insufficient information on the record of this rulemaking from which the NRC can develop such a process or even determine whether such a process is feasible. Thus, the NRC is not establishing an LWA process for materials licenses at this time. The NRC may consider this issue in more detail in a future rulemaking.
We, too, do not understand applicable NRC regulations or statutes to prohibit outright NFS's construction activities. But the Petitioners undoubtedly are correct that our rules “
In short, NFS proceeds at its own risk with construction activities. If NFS begins or continues to construct buildings associated with license amendments for which the Staff's environmental review is incomplete, NFS's construction may prove grounds for denial of one or more of the license amendments.
The decision in
As is discussed in more detail in Section III, Discussion, NEPA is largely a procedural statute, which requires that the NRC undertake environmental review of its licensing actions. In implementing the requirements of NEPA, the NRC has determined in § 51.101(a)(2) that taking action that would have an adverse environmental impact, or would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives may be grounds for denial of a license, and includes within these designations the provisions in §§ 30.33(a)(5), 40.32(e), and 70.23(a)(7). Furthermore, as is also discussed further in Section III, Discussion, § 161.b of the AEA confers on the NRC the authority to establish by rule and regulation such standards as the NRC “deems necessary or desirable” to ensure the public health and safety from radiological hazards, including limitations on an applicant's or licensee's ability to engage in construction, which it did when it initially promulgated §§ 30.33(a)(5), 40.32(e), and 70.23(a)(7).
It is also important to note that the Commission limited its finding in
By identifying those site preparation activities that are not considered construction, the NRC avoids piecemeal regulation and licensing actions and brings more uniformity to the application of the NRC's regulatory authority to matters of construction. The NRC cannot “choose” to extend its authority beyond the limits of the AEA and require applicants to get prior permission to perform activities that are not within our statutory authority.
By virtue of the exemption process that exists in Part 40, the NRC has had the opportunity to identify some activities that have a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety and would therefore constitute construction. For instance, most recently in response to an exemption request submitted by Lost Creek ISR, LLC (ADAMS Accession No. ML091940438) the NRC has previously determined that certain activities are “construction,” including construction of the processing plant, which serves to concentrate, precipitate, and dry yellowcake; and construction of any structure or system to manage waste, such as deep disposal wells (ADAMS Accession No. ML093350365).
It would, however, be prudent of a materials license applicant that is engaging in site preparation activities to be mindful of the NRC's obligations under the NHPA, including the requirements to identify any historic properties within the area of potential effects, to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and any other relevant stakeholders (such as Native American Tribes), and to attempt to resolve any adverse effects upon such historic properties. These procedural requirements must be satisfied by the NRC before it can approve the subject application (assuming all radiological health and safety and common defense and security requirements are met). For example, § 110k. of the NHPA requires that before granting a license the NRC ensure that an applicant has not “intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the [license] would relate, or having legal power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur * * *” with the intent of avoiding NRC review of the effect of the proposed licensing action on “any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.” Section 106 of the NHPA. Accordingly, a materials license applicant should proceed carefully when engaging site preparation activities undertaken lest the outcome impacts the NRC's ability to issue a license.
In order to facilitate and expedite the NRC's NHPA process, materials license applicants are encouraged to contact any potential stakeholders who may have an interest in any historic properties on or near the site and to take steps to prevent or minimize any disturbance to such historic properties. In this regard, materials license applicants are also encouraged, upon the discovery of previously unknown historic properties, archeological resources or other cultural artifacts, to cease any such activities that may disturb or damage such resources and, inventory and evaluate the discovery in accordance with accepted historic preservation and archeological practices (see the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Identification at
Comments received on this rule have questioned whether the NRC is unnecessarily limiting its authority to matters concerning “radiological” health and safety or common defense and security considerations. The majority of the commenters opposed to this rule believe that the AEA confers much broader authority to the NRC to consider a broader range of health and safety or common defense and security concerns.
As indicated in the proposed rule, the NRC has determined that the AEA does not authorize the NRC to require an applicant for an NRC license to obtain the NRC's permission before undertaking site preparation activities that do not implicate radiological health and safety or common defense and security considerations. This interpretation is not new and has been reviewed and upheld repeatedly by the Courts. In 1969, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed this issue in
It is important to note that while the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) amended the AEA to give the NRC the authority necessary “to protect the public health and safety and the environment from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the processing and with the possession of such material * * *” with respect to certain byproduct material (§ 84.a.(1) of the AEA), the NRC's authority over non-radiological hazards is limited to those hazards specifically associated with the processing and possession of byproduct material. Contrary to some of the commenters assertions, UMTRCA did not operate to expand the NRC's jurisdiction to private actions not specifically associated with the processing or possession of radioactive material.
A second set of commenters also questions whether the NRC has authority to impose a prohibition against construction on materials licensees. While the NRC's authority to protect the public health and safety may be limited to radiological hazards, its primary authority under the AEA is grounded in its authority to grant, deny and condition licenses for certain nuclear materials and facilities. With respect to materials licenses, the NRC has authority over the manufacture, production, transfer, possession, use, ownership, import and export of radioactive material.
Establish by rule, regulation, or order, such standards and instructions to govern the possession and use of special nuclear material, source material, and byproduct material as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable to promote the common defense and security or to protect [the radiological] health or to minimize danger to life or property [from radiological hazards].
It is this grant of authority that allows the NRC to establish as a condition of licensing that materials license applicants not engage in construction impacting common defense and security or public health and safety with respect to radiological hazards prior to the completion of the environmental review for the licensed facility.
As previously indicated, the AEA does not authorize the NRC to require an applicant to obtain permission before undertaking site preparation activities that do not implicate radiological health and safety or common defense and security. These activities, being outside of the scope of the NRC's jurisdiction are, therefore, considered to be non-Federal actions, at least with respect to the NRC's licensing actions. Such activities might trigger other Federal authority if, for example, they were to take place on Federal lands in accordance with a Bureau of Land Management lease. As set forth in the Statement of Consideration for the proposed rule, the NRC believes that this rule is fully compliant with the requirements of NEPA. The NEPA obligations and responsibilities arise only when the Commission undertakes a Federal action within the NRC's statutory responsibility.
Contrary to the statements of some commenters, the courts have consistently determined that NEPA is a procedural statute, and as such it cannot and does not expand the NRC's jurisdiction beyond the scope of the AEA;
[W]hile NEPA may require the NRC to consider the environmental effects caused by the exercise of its permitting/licensing authority, the statute cannot be the source of the expansion of the NRC's authority to require * * * other forms of permission for activities that are not reasonably related to radiological health and safety or protection of the common defense and security. Since NEPA cannot expand the Commission's * * * authority under the AEA, the elimination of the blanket inclusion of site preparation activities in the [then existing] definition of construction does not violate NEPA.
The commenters also claim that the NRC is inappropriately segmenting the site preparation activities from the licensed facility construction activities at the site to avoid NEPA. This is not the case. Generally, the NEPA segmentation problem arises when the environmental impacts of Federal actions are evaluated in a piecemeal fashion and, as a result, the comprehensive environmental impacts of the entire Federal action are never considered or are only considered after the agency has committed itself to continuation of the project. Another associated segmentation problem arises when pieces of a Federal action are evaluated separately and, as a result, none of the individual pieces are considered “major Federal actions” requiring an EIS.
The site preparation activities identified in the rule are activities that any private entity can undertake on
While the effects of any non-Federal site preparation activities undertaken by a materials license applicant will not be considered effects of the NRC's licensing action, the effects of the site preparation activities would be considered as part of the NRC's cumulative impact analysis performed during the environmental review of the licensing action. Cumulative impacts are defined as the “impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” 40 CFR 1508.7. In accordance with its guidance on this issue, the NRC staff's cumulative impacts analysis will identify and describe effects of past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future actions to the extent that they are relevant and useful in determining the magnitude and significance of the effects of the proposed NRC licensing action. See NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” Similar to the LWA Rulemaking, the NRC is revising § 51.60 to require that the environmental report submitted with an application for a materials license or an amendment to a materials license include a description of the site preparation activities undertaken at the proposed site; a description of the impacts of such site preparation activities; and an analysis of the cumulative impacts of the site preparation activities on the proposed licensing action.
With respect to the comments regarding other environmental protection statutes, the NRC remains committed to fulfilling its obligations under these statutes during its review of any license action. It is important to note, however, that each of the statutes applies specifically to the NRC only to the extent that an activity comes within the NRC's licensing authority or is a “Federal undertaking” by the NRC. For the same reasons previously stated, site preparation activities are not part of the NRC licensing action process and as such do not constitute either a “major Federal action,” or a “Federal undertaking” by the NRC.
Section 30.4 is amended by adding definitions for the terms “construction” and “commencement of construction.”
The amendment to § 30.33(a)(5) deletes the definition of “commencement of construction” contained in the last two sentences of the paragraph. “Commencement of construction” is now defined in § 30.4.
Section 36.2 is amended by adding definitions for the terms “construction” and “commencement of construction.”
Section 36.13(a) is amended to exclude § 30.33(a)(5) as a requirement for an applicant to receive a specific license under this part. The provision in § 30.33(a)(5) pertains to “commencement of construction.” “Commencement of construction” provisions for Part 36 licenses are already contained in § 36.15.
The amendment in § 36.15 revises the section title “Start of construction” to “Commencement of construction” and deletes the definition of “construction.” The definitions of “commencement of construction” and “construction” are now defined in § 36.2.
Section 39.13 is amended to change the reference to § 70.33 to § 70.23.
Section 40.4 is amended by adding definitions for the terms “construction” and “commencement of construction.”
The amendment to § 40.32(e) deletes the definition of “commencement of construction” contained in the last two sentences of the paragraph. “Commencement of construction” is now defined in § 40.4.
The amendment to § 51.4 clarifies that the definition of “construction” applies to materials licenses.
The amendment to § 51.45(c) corrects the reference to § 51.4, and describes additional information that the environmental report for materials licenses should contain.
Section 70.4 is amended by adding definitions for the terms “construction” and “commencement of construction.”
The amendment to § 70.23(a)(7) deletes the definition of “commencement of construction” contained in the last two sentences of the paragraph. “Commencement of construction” is now defined in § 70.4.
Section 150.31(b)(3)(iv) is revised to include definitions for “commencement of construction” and “construction.”
Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” which became effective on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this final rule is a matter of compatibility between the NRC and Agreement States, thereby providing consistency among the Agreement States and the NRC's requirements. The NRC program elements (including regulations) are placed into Compatibility Categories A, B, C, D, NRC, or adequacy category, Health and Safety (H&S). Category A includes program elements that are basic radiation protection standards or related definitions, signs, labels, or terms necessary for a common understanding of radiation protection principles and should be essentially identical to those of the NRC. Category B includes
Compatibility Category C includes those program elements that do not meet the criteria of Categories A or B but nonetheless are consistent with an Agreement State's efforts to avoid conflict, duplication, gaps, or other conditions that would jeopardize an orderly pattern in the regulation of agreement material on a nationwide basis. Therefore, the program elements in Compatibility Category C should be adopted by Agreement States.
Compatibility Category D includes those program elements that do not meet any of the criteria of Category A, B, or C, and do not need to be adopted by Agreement States.
Compatibility Category NRC consists of those program elements that address areas of regulation that cannot be relinquished to Agreement States pursuant to the AEA or provisions of Title 10 of the
Category H&S consist of program elements that are not required for compatibility, but have a particular health and safety role (
The NRC has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the procedure established within Part III, “Categorization Process for NRC Program Elements,” of Handbook 5.9 to Management Directive 5.9, “Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” (a copy of which may be viewed at
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113), requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this final rule, the NRC is clarifying those activities that constitute “construction” for materials licenses. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)(i). Section 51.22(c)(1) provides a categorical exclusion for amendments to various parts of the NRC's regulations, including Part 150. Section 51.22(c)(2) provides a categorical exclusion for amendments to the NRC's regulations which are of a corrective or minor or nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing regulations. Section 51.22(c)(3)(i) provides a categorical exclusion for amendments to any part of the NRC's regulations which relate to procedures for filing and reviewing applications, amendments, or renewals for licenses or other forms of permission. In this final rule, the amendments to Parts 30, 40, 36, and 70 relate to the procedures for reviewing applications, amendments, and renewals of materials licenses subject to these parts. The amendments to Part 39 correct a typographical error, and the remaining amendments are to Part 150. Because these amendments belong to a category of actions which the NRC has previously found do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule.
This final rule does not contain new or amended information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.
A regulatory analysis has not been prepared for this regulation. This rule amends the NRC's regulations to conform the definitions of “construction” and “commencement of construction” as they appear in Parts 30, 36, 40, 70, and 150, to the Parts 50, 51, and 52 definitions implemented by the LWA Rulemaking, revised to reference non-nuclear power plant licensees. This amendment does not impose any new burden or reporting requirements on the licensee or the NRC for compliance. Also, this rule does not involve an exercise of NRC discretion and therefore does not necessitate preparation of a regulatory analysis.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects only materials licensees. The companies that apply for a license in accordance with the regulations affected by this rule do not fall within the scope of the definition of “small entities” set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).
The NRC has determined that this final rule is not subject to any of the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, 76.76, or the finality provision of 10 CFR part 52. The amendments in this rule do not involve any provisions that would impose backfits on nuclear power plant licensees as defined in 10 CFR parts 50 or 52, or on licensees for gaseous diffusion plants, independent spent fuel storage installations or special nuclear material as defined in 10 CFR parts 70, 72 and 76, respectively; therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. With respect to Parts 30, 36, 39, and 40 licensees, the NRC has determined that there are no provisions for backfit in these parts; therefore, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis or any other documentation for this final rule.
In accordance with the Congressional Review Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures.
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Nuclear materials, Oil and gas exploration—well logging, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Source material, Special nuclear material.
Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Hazardous materials transportation, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Uranium.
Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Material control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Source material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 30, 36, 39, 40, 51, 70, and 150.
Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 549 (2005).
Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.61 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
(1) Radiological health and safety; or
(2) Common defense and security.
(1) Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational purposes;
(2) Site exploration, including necessary borings to determine foundation conditions or other preconstruction monitoring to establish background information related to the suitability of the site, the environmental impacts of construction or operation, or the protection of environmental values;
(3) Preparation of the site for construction of the facility, including clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage, erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, and construction of temporary roads and borrow areas;
(4) Erection of fences and other access control measures that are not related to the safe use of, or security of, radiological materials subject to this part;
(5) Excavation;
(6) Erection of support buildings (
(7) Building of service facilities (
(8) Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location at the facility; or
(9) Taking any other action that has no reasonable nexus to:
(i) Radiological health and safety, or
(ii) Common defense and security.
(a) * * *
(5) In the case of an application for a license to receive and possess byproduct material for the conduct of any activity which the NRC determines will significantly affect the quality of the environment, the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs or his/her designee, before commencement of construction of the plant or facility in which the activity will be conducted, on the basis of information filed and evaluations made pursuant to subpart A of part 51 of this chapter, has concluded, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, that the action called for is the issuance of the proposed license, with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values. Commencement of construction prior to such conclusion shall be grounds for denial of a license to receive and possess byproduct material in such plant or facility. Commencement of construction as defined in § 30.4 may include non-construction activities if the activity has a reasonable nexus to radiological safety and security.
Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
(1) Radiological health and safety; or
(2) Common defense and security.
(1) Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational purposes;
(2) Site exploration, including necessary borings to determine foundation conditions or other preconstruction monitoring to establish background information related to the suitability of the site, the environmental impacts of construction or operation, or the protection of environmental values;
(3) Preparation of the site for construction of the facility, including clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage, erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, and construction of temporary roads and borrow areas;
(4) Erection of fences and other access control measures that are not related to the safe use of, or security of, radiological materials subject to this part;
(5) Excavation;
(6) Erection of support buildings (
(7) Building of service facilities (
(8) Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location at the facility; or
(9) Taking any other action that has no reasonable nexus to:
(i) Radiological health and safety, or
(ii) Common defense and security.
(a) The applicant shall satisfy the general requirements specified in §§ 30.33(a)(1)-(4) and 30.33(b) of this chapter and the requirements contained in this part.
Commencement of construction of a new irradiator may not occur prior to the submission to the NRC of both an application for a license for the irradiator and the fee required by § 170.31 of this chapter. Any activities undertaken prior to the issuance of a license are entirely at the risk of the applicant and have no bearing on the issuance of a license with respect to the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Act), as amended, and rules, regulations, and orders issued under the Act. Commencement of construction as defined in § 36.2 may include non-construction activities if the activity has a reasonable nexus to radiological safety and security.
Secs. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note).
(a) The applicant shall satisfy the general requirements specified in § 30.33 of this chapter for byproduct material, in § 40.32 of this chapter for source material, and in § 70.23 of this chapter for special nuclear material, as appropriate, and any special requirements contained in this part.
Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2), 83, 84, Pub. L. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022); sec. 193, 104 Stat. 2835, as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-349 (42 U.S.C. 2243); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
(1) Radiological health and safety; or
(2) Common defense and security.
(1) Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational purposes;
(2) Site exploration, including necessary borings to determine foundation conditions or other preconstruction monitoring to establish background information related to the suitability of the site, the environmental impacts of construction or operation, or the protection of environmental values;
(3) Preparation of the site for construction of the facility, including clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage, erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, and construction of temporary roads and borrow areas;
(4) Erection of fences and other access control measures that are not related to the safe use of, or security of, radiological materials subject to this part;
(5) Excavation;
(6) Erection of support buildings (
(7) Building of service facilities (
(8) Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location at the facility; or
(9) Taking any other action that has no reasonable nexus to:
(i) Radiological health and safety, or
(ii) Common defense and security.
(e) In the case of an application for a license for a uranium enrichment facility, or for a license to possess and use source and byproduct material for uranium milling, production of uranium hexafluoride, or for the conduct of any other activity which the NRC determines will significantly affect the quality of the environment, the Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs or his/her designee, before commencement of construction, on the basis of information filed and evaluations made pursuant to subpart A of part 51 of this chapter, has concluded, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, that the action called for is the issuance of the proposed license, with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values. Commencement of construction prior to this conclusion is grounds for denial of a license to possess and use source and byproduct material in the plant or facility. Commencement of construction as defined in § 40.4 may include non-construction activities if the activity has a reasonable nexus to radiological safety and security.
Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 1701, 106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953, (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, secs. 102, 104, 105, 83 Stat. 853-854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, 4335); and Pub. L. 95-604, Title II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041; and sec. 193, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243). Sections 51.20, 51.30, 51.60, 51.80. and 51.97 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241, and sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-223 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161, 10168). Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021) and under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 121, 96 Stat. 2228 (42 U.S.C. 10141). Sections 51.43, 51.67, and 51.109 also issued under Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, sec. 114(f), 96 Stat. 2216, as amended (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)).
(1) For production and utilization facilities, the activities in paragraph (1)(i) of this definition, and does not mean the activities in paragraph (1)(ii) of this definition.
(i) Activities constituting construction are the driving of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing, which are for:
(A) Safety-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs) of a facility, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2;
(B) SSCs relied upon to mitigate accidents or transients or used in plant emergency operating procedures;
(C) SSCs whose failure could prevent safety-related SSCs from fulfilling their safety-related function;
(D) SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system;
(E) SSCs necessary to comply with 10 CFR part 73;
(F) SSCs necessary to comply with 10 CFR 50.48 and criterion 3 of 10 CFR part 50, appendix A; and
(G) Onsite emergency facilities (
(ii) Construction does not include:
(A) Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational purposes;
(B) Site exploration, including necessary borings to determine foundation conditions or other preconstruction monitoring to establish background information related to the suitability of the site, the environmental impacts of construction or operation, or the protection of environmental values;
(C) Preparation of a site for construction of a facility, including clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage, erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, and construction of temporary roads and borrow areas;
(D) Erection of fences and other access control measures that are not safety or security related, and do not pertain to radiological controls;
(E) Excavation;
(F) Erection of support buildings (
(G) Building of service facilities (
(H) Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location at the facility;
(I) Manufacture of a nuclear power reactor under a manufacturing license under subpart F of part 52 of this chapter to be installed at the proposed site and to be part of the proposed facility; or
(J) With respect to production or utilization facilities, other than testing
(2) For materials licenses, taking any site-preparation activity at the site of a facility subject to the regulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 36, 40, and 70 that has a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or the common defense and security; provided, however, that construction does not mean:
(i) Those actions or activities listed in paragraphs (1)(ii)(A)-(H) of this definition; or
(ii) Taking any other action that has no reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or the common defense and security.
(c)
Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948, 953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282, 2297f); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 204, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846). Sec. 193, 104 Stat. 2835 as amended by Pub. L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-349 (42 U.S.C. 2243); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, 119 Stat. 194 (2005).
Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec. 57d, Pub. L. 93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.81 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.82 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
(1) Radiological health and safety; or
(2) Common defense and security.
(1) Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational purposes;
(2) Site exploration, including necessary borings to determine foundation conditions or other preconstruction monitoring to establish background information related to the suitability of the site, the environmental impacts of construction or operation, or the protection of environmental values;
(3) Preparation of the site for construction of the facility, including clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage, erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, and construction of temporary roads and borrow areas;
(4) Erection of fences and other access control measures that are not related to the safe use of, or security of, radiological materials subject to this part;
(5) Excavation;
(6) Erection of support buildings (
(7) Building of service facilities (
(8) Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the proposed facility occurring at other than the final, in-place location at the facility; or
(9) Taking any other action that has no reasonable nexus to:
(i) Radiological health and safety, or
(ii) Common defense and security.
(a) * * *
(7) Where the proposed activity is processing and fuel fabrication, scrap recovery, conversion of uranium hexafluoride, uranium enrichment facility construction and operation, or any other activity which the NRC determines will significantly affect the quality of the environment, the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards or his/her designee, before commencement of construction of the plant or facility in which the activity will be conducted, on the basis of information filed and evaluations made pursuant to subpart A of part 51 of this chapter, has concluded, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental costs and considering available alternatives, that the action called for is the issuance of the proposed license, with any appropriate conditions to protect environmental values. Commencement of construction prior to this conclusion is grounds for denial to possess and use special nuclear material in the plant or facility. Commencement of construction as defined in section 70.4 may include non-construction activities if the activity has a reasonable nexus to radiological safety and security.
Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2021); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued under secs. 11e(2), 81, 68 Stat. 923, 935, as amended, secs. 83, 84, 92 Stat. 3033, 3039 (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114). Section 150.14 also issued under sec. 53, 68 Stat. 930, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073).
Section 150.15 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 150.17a also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 150.30 also issued under sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444 (42 U.S.C. 2282).
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Prohibit commencement of construction with respect to such material prior to complying with the provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section. As used in this paragraph:
(A) The term
(B) The term
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace at Grand Junction, CO. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to facilitate vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic from Grand Junction Regional Airport to en route and enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action also amends Class D and Class E airspace to update the airport name from Grand Junction, Walker Field.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, December 15, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
On July 8, 2011, the FAA published in the
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace at Grand Junction Regional Airport, Grand Junction, CO. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface is necessary to accommodate vectoring IFR aircraft departing Grand Junction Regional Airport to en route airspace. This action also amends Class D and Class E airspace to update the airport name from Grand Junction, Walker Field, to Grand Junction Regional Airport, Grand Junction, CO.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it creates additional controlled airspace at Grand Junction Regional Airport, Grand Junction, CO.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,400 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of Grand Junction Regional Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
Within a 4.7-mile radius of Grand Junction Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles each side of the Grand Junction Regional Airport Runway 11 ILS localizer northwest course extending from the 4.7-mile radius of Grand Junction Regional Airport to 7 miles northwest of the localizer.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within 7 miles northwest and 4.3 miles southeast of the Grand Junction VOR/DME 247° and 067° radials extending from 11.4 miles southwest to 12.3 miles northeast of the VOR/DME, and within 1.8 miles south and 9.2 miles north of the Grand Junction VOR/DME 110° radial extending from the VOR/DME to 19.2 miles southeast; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 33.1-mile radius of the Grand Junction VOR/DME beginning at the 020° bearing of the Grand Junction VOR/DME, clockwise to the 270° bearing of the Grand Junction VOR/DME, and within a 63-mile radius of the Grand Junction VOR/DME beginning at the 270° bearing of the Grand Junction VOR/DME, clockwise to the 020° bearing of the Grand Junction VOR/DME.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace at Dawson Community Airport, Glendive, MT, to accommodate aircraft using Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures. This improves the safety and management of
Effective date, 0901 UTC, December 15, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
On July 13, 2011, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Dawson Community Airport, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations. Except for an editorial change in the airspace designation from [Modify] to [Modified], this rule is the same as that published in the notice of proposed rulemaking July 13, 2011.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies controlled airspace at Dawson Community Airport, Glendive, MT.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.5-mile radius of the Dawson Community Airport, and within 4 miles northeast and 8.3 miles southwest of the 325° bearing from the Dawson Community Airport extending from the 10.5-mile radius to 16.1 miles northwest of the airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 47°38′00″ N., long. 104°48′00″ W.; to lat. 47°17′00″ N., long. 104°05′00″ W.; to lat. 46°54′00″ N., long. 104°05′00″ W.; to lat. 46°45′00″ N., long. 105°09′00″ W.; to lat. 47°00′00″ N., long. 105°37′00″ W.; to lat. 47°19′00″ N., long. 105°15′00″ W., thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies Class E airspace at Tonopah, NV, to accommodate aircraft using new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Tonopah Airport, NV. This action also makes a minor adjustment to the geographic coordinates of the airport, and corrects geographic coordinates in the regulatory text. This rule improves the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective date, 0901 UTC, December 15, 2011. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4537.
On July 8, 2011, the FAA published in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E surface airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Tonopah Airport, Tonopah, NV, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. Additionally, the latitude and longitude coordinates in the text of Class E airspace listed under paragraph 6005 are adjusted to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations. With the exception of editorial changes and the changes noted above, this rule is the same as that proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking July 8, 2011.
The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it creates additional controlled airspace at Tonopah Airport, Tonopah, NV.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 8.2-mile radius of the Tonopah Airport and within 2 miles each side of the 358° bearing from the Tonopah Airport extending from the 8.2-mile radius to 10.5 miles north of the Tonopah Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the Tonopah Airport 117° bearing extending from the 8.2-mile radius to 11.5 miles southeast of the Tonopah Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 10.7-mile radius of the Tonopah Airport, and that airspace northwest of the Tonopah Airport bounded by a line beginning at lat. 38°10′16″ N., long. 117°15′50″ W.; to lat. 38°12′00″ N., long. 117°17′00″ W.; to lat. 38°18′00″ N., long. 117°17′00″ W.; to lat. 38°18′00″ N., long. 117°03′00″ W.; to lat. 38°14′13″ N., long. 117°03′13″ W.; thence clockwise via the 10.7-mile radius of the Tonopah Airport to lat. 38°00′36″ N., long. 116°52′13″ W.; to lat. 38°00′09″ N., long. 116°51′06″ W.; to lat. 37°56′35″ N., long. 116°53′24″ W.; to lat. 37°57′02″ N., long. 116°54′31″ W.; thence clockwise via the 10.7-mile radius of the Tonopah Airport to the point of beginning. That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within the area bounded by a line beginning at lat. 37°52′46″ N., long. 117°05′41″ W.; to lat. 37°39′00″ N., long. 117°22′00″ W.; to lat. 37°35′00″ N., long. 117°36′00″ W.; to lat. 37°56′00″ N., long. 117°54′00″ W.; to lat. 37°56′50″ N., long. 117°32′00″ W.; to lat. 38°08′00″ N., long. 117°41′00″ W.; to lat. 38°18′00″ N., long. 117°24′00″ W.; to lat. 38°18′00″ N., long. 117°00′00″ W.; to lat. 38°14′00″ N., long. 117°00′00″ W.; to lat. 38°17′00″ N., long. 116°36′00″ W.; to lat. 38°00′00″ N., long. 116°33′00″ W.; to lat. 37°59′30″ N., long. 116°38′30″ W.; to lat. 37°53′00″ N., long. 116°38′30″ W.; thence to the point of beginning.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient
This rule is effective September 15, 2011. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2011.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective September 15, 2011. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2011.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located;
3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of availability; response to comments.
The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has developed final policy and permitting guidance for submarine cable projects proposed in national marine sanctuaries. This action identifies the criteria the ONMS will use to ensure that applications to install and maintain submarine cables in sanctuaries are reviewed consistently and in a manner that adheres to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and ONMS regulations (15 CFR part 922). The ONMS is releasing its final policy and permitting guidance, and responding to comments on the interim policy.
This notice of availability is effective as a final policy as of September 15, 2011.
Copies of the final policy and permit guidance for submarine cable projects may be viewed and downloaded at
Vicki Wedell, (301) 713-3125.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to final regulations and removal of temporary regulations (TD 9542) that were published in the
This correction is effective on September 15, 2011 and is applicable August 16, 2011.
R. Matthew Kelley, (202) 622-7900 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations and removal of temporary regulations that are the subject of this document are under sections 195, 248, and 709 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulations and removal of temporary regulations (TD 9542) contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *.
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
($36,000 − $1,200 = $34,800) ratably over the remaining 174 months.
($54,000 − $1,800 = $ 52,200) ratably over the remaining 174 months.
($450,000 − $15,000 = $435,000) ratably over the remaining 174 months.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation for valuation dates in October 2011 and interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for valuation dates in the fourth quarter of 2011. The interest assumptions are used for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans
Effective October 1, 2011.
Catherine B. Klion (
PBGC's regulations on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) and Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulations are also published on PBGC's Web site (
The interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly; assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for October 2011 and updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the fourth quarter (October through December) of 2011.
The fourth quarter 2011 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 4.07 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.28 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the third quarter of 2011, these interest assumptions represent a decrease of five years in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), a decrease of 0.14 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.06 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
The October 2011 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 1.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for September 2011, these interest assumptions represent a decrease of 0.50 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during October 2011, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. The revision amends the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg, Weirton, and Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance areas. This revision amends the maintenance plans' 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) by reallocating a portion of the plans' safety margins which results in an increase in the MVEBs. The revised plans continue to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone. EPA is approving this SIP revision to the West Virginia maintenance plans for the Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg, Weirton, and Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance areas in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This rule is effective on November 14, 2011 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 17, 2011. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0511 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Martin Kotsch, (215) 814-3335, or by e-mail at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On July 11, 2006 (71 FR 39001), EPA redesignated the Charleston area of West Virginia to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the Charleston area, the redesignation included approval of an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, which identifies on-road MVEBs for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
On September 15, 2006 (71 FR 54421), EPA redesignated the Huntington-Ashland area of West Virginia to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the Huntington area, the redesignation included approval of an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, which identifies on-road MVEBs for VOCs and NO
On May 8, 2007 (72 FR 25967), EPA redesignated the Parkersburg-Marietta area of West Virginia to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the Parkersburg area, the redesignation included approval of an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, which identifies on-road MVEBs for VOCs and NO
On May 14, 2007 (72 FR 27060), EPA redesignated the Steubenville-Weirton area of West Virginia to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the Weirton area, the redesignation included approval of an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, which identifies on-road MVEBs for VOCs and NO
On May 15, 2007 (72 FR 27247), EPA redesignated the Wheeling area of West Virginia to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the Wheeling area, the redesignation included approval of an 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, which identifies on-road MVEBs for VOCs and NO
For all five of the nonattainment areas, the MVEBs are being revised to account for the new EPA emissions model called Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) which by March 3, 2012 must be used for all new transportation conformity determinations which occur after that date. During early testing, it was found that mobile vehicle emissions using MOVES were predicted to be higher now than when using the older EPA model MOBILE6. The MOBILE6 emissions model was utilized in developing the MVEBs contained in the approved maintenance plan for each area. To account for this anticipated increase in predicted mobile emissions, West Virginia has revised its existing MVEBs in each area using available safety margins which is allowable.
On March 14, 2011, the State of West Virginia submitted to EPA a formal revision to its SIP. The SIP revision proposes new MVEBs for the Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg, Weirton, and Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance areas, to reflect the reallocation of a portion of the differences (safety margins) between the total base year and total projected 2009 and 2018 8-hour ozone maintenance emissions, which produces an increase in the MVEBs. The base year is 2004 for all the 8 hour ozone maintenance areas. By increasing the MVEBs, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is ensuring that transportation conformity can be demonstrated in all 8-hour ozone maintenance areas. The March 14, 2011 submittal, while increasing the MVEBs, still ensures maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone for all of the Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg, Weirton, and Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance areas.
Tables 1 and 2 describe the basis of the new revised MVEBs for the Charleston area.
For the Charleston, West Virginia 8-hour ozone maintenance area addressed herein, the WVDEP increased the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs using available safety margins to allow for projected increases in emissions as predicted by the MOVES model. The 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for VOCs and NO
The State has proposed reallocating some of the emissions from the current safety margin into the MVEBs for both VOCs and NO
To explain how the safety margins are determined and allocated for all the nonattainment areas, the NO
For the Huntington area, Tables 3 and 4 describe the basis of the new revised MVEBs and the overall emissions for the area.
For the Parkersburg area, Tables 5 and 6 describe the basis of the new revised MVEBs and the overall emissions for the area.
For the Weirton area, Tables 7 and 8 describe the basis of the new revised MVEBs and the overall emissions for the area.
For the Wheeling area, Tables 9 and 10 describe the basis of the new revised MVEBs and the overall emissions for the area.
EPA is approving West Virginia's SIP revision submitted on March 14, 2011, which amends the 8-hour ozone maintenance plans for the Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg, Weirton, and Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance areas. These revisions amend the maintenance plans' 2009 and 2018 MVEBs to reflect the reallocation of a portion of the plans' safety margins which results in an increase in the MVEBs. EPA is approving this SIP revision to the maintenance plans for these areas because this revision continues to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment, since no significant adverse comments were received on the SIP revision at the State level. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's
If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 14, 2011. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
This action to approve the West Virginia 8 hour ozone maintenance plan revisions may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory material.
(a) EPA approves the following revised 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Charleston, West Virginia 8-hour ozone maintenance area submitted by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection on March 14, 2011:
(b) EPA approves the following revised 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Huntington, West Virginia 8-hour ozone maintenance area submitted by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection on March 14, 2011:
(c) EPA approves the following revised 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Parkersburg, West Virginia 8-hour ozone maintenance area submitted by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection on March 14, 2011:
(d) EPA approves the following revised 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Weirton, West Virginia 8-hour ozone maintenance area submitted by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection on March 14, 2011:
(e) EPA approves the following revised 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Wheeling, West Virginia 8-hour ozone maintenance area submitted by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection on March 14, 2011:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
On July 25, 2011, EPA published a direct final rule approving portions of three revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on August 31, 1993; July 22, 1998; and October 5, 2010. The revisions amend existing sections and create new sections in Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 116—Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification. The August 31, 1993, revision creates two new sections at 30 TAC 116.174 and 116.175 for the use of emission reductions as offsets in new source review permitting. The July 22, 1998, revision creates 30 TAC 116.116(f) allowing for the use of Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERC) to exceed emission limits in permits (permit allowables) and amends 30 TAC 116.174 to update internal citations to other Texas regulations. The October 5, 2010, revision amends 30 TAC 116.116(f) to update internal citations to other Texas regulations. The direct final action was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comments. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if we received relevant, adverse comments by August 24, 2011, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the
The direct final rule published on July 25, 2011 (76 FR 44271), is withdrawn as of September 15, 2011.
Ms. Erica Le Doux (6PD-R), Air Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is (214) 665-7265. Ms. Le Doux can also be reached via electronic mail at
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.2270 published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Establishment of Class VI Program.
EPA is announcing the establishment of a Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO
The national Class VI Program is effective as of September 7, 2011.
Lisa McWhirter, Underground Injection Control Program, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
This action applies to all State and Tribal governments and owners or operators of injection wells that will be used to inject CO
This table is not intended to be an exhaustive list; rather it provides a guide for readers regarding entities that this action applies to. This action could also apply to other types of entities not listed in the table. To determine
1.
2.
On December 10, 2010, EPA finalized minimum Federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for underground injection of CO
Under 40 CFR 145.21(h) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), EPA provided States 270 days, from December 10, 2010, to submit a complete primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) application for implementation of the Class VI Program that met the requirements of 40 CFR 145.22 or 145.32 (75 FR 77242). While the Agency has worked with States interested in applying for Class VI Program primacy, as of September 6, 2011, EPA has not received or approved any complete primacy applications.
In the preamble to the Class VI Final Rule (75 FR 77242), EPA clarified that, in light of national priorities for promoting climate change mitigation strategies and Administration priorities for developing and deploying CCS projects in the next few years as highlighted in the “Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage” (August 2010), it is important to have enforceable Class VI regulations in place nationwide as soon as possible. As a result, in the Class VI Final Rule, EPA provided that the Federal rule would become effective in every State that had not submitted a primacy application within the 270-day transition period provided by SDWA. The Agency committed to publishing, in the
As a result, beginning September 7:
• The “transitional period” during which States were able to use existing UIC authorities (
• A State may no longer issue Class I permits for CO
• Until a State receives primacy for the Class VI Program, a State may not issue Class VI UIC permits (75 FR 77243) under SDWA. All permit applications for GS projects must be directed to the appropriate EPA Region in order for a Class VI permit to be issued (75 FR 77243). EPA encourages owners or operators to contact EPA Regions regarding existing and future GS projects. EPA Regions will work with States that are considering applying for Class VI primacy, where possible, to ensure that Class VI permits are designed in a way that will be compatible with the final State Program requirements. EPA expects the majority, if not all, of the wells injecting CO
• As provided in 40 CFR 146.81(c), owners or operators of either Class I wells previously permitted for the purpose of GS or Class V experimental technology wells no longer being used for experimental purposes that will continue injection of CO
• A State may, at any time in the future, apply for Class VI Program primacy following establishment of a Federal Class VI UIC Program. If a State receives Class VI Program primacy approval in the future, EPA will publish a subsequent
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) hereby makes certain changes to its regulations, which relate to the public availability of the Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (NTIA Manual). Specifically, NTIA updates the version of the Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management with which federal agencies must comply when requesting use of the radio frequency spectrum.
This regulation is effective on September 15, 2011. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2011.
A reference copy of the NTIA Manual, including all revisions in effect, is available in the Office of Spectrum Management, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1087, Washington, DC 20230.
William Mitchell, Office of Spectrum Management, at (202) 482-8124 or
NTIA authorizes the U.S. Government's use of the radio frequency spectrum. 47 U.S.C. 902(b)(2)(A). As part of this authority, NTIA developed the NTIA Manual to provide further guidance to applicable federal agencies. The NTIA Manual is the compilation of policies and procedures that govern the use of the radio frequency spectrum by the U.S. Government. Federal government agencies are required to follow these policies and procedures in their use of the spectrum.
Part 300 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides information about the process by which NTIA regularly revises the NTIA Manual and makes public this document and all revisions. Federal agencies are required to comply with the specifications in the NTIA Manual when requesting frequency assignments for use of the radio frequency spectrum.
This rule updates section 300.1(b) of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations to specify the version of the NTIA Manual with which federal agencies must comply when requesting frequency assignments for use of the radio frequency spectrum. In particular, this rule amends section 300.1(b) by replacing “September 2010” with “May 2011.”
The NTIA Manual is scheduled for revision in January, May, and September of each year and is submitted to the Director of the Federal Register for Incorporation by Reference approval. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and part 51 of title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The NTIA Manual is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, by referring to Catalog Number 903-008-00000-8. A reference copy of the NTIA Manual, including all revisions in effect, is available in the Office of Spectrum Management, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1087, Washington, DC 20230, or call William Mitchell on (202) 482-8124, and available online at
This action does not contain collection of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the PRA, unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NTIA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment as it is unnecessary. This action amends the regulations to include the date of the most current version of the NTIA Manual. These changes do not impact the rights or obligations of the public. The NTIA Manual applies only to federal agencies. Because these changes impact only federal agencies, NTIA finds it unnecessary to provide for the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. NTIA also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the reasons provided above. Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The NTIA Manual provides for the policies and procedures for federal agencies' use of the radio spectrum. The NTIA Manual and the changes thereto do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of the public. As a result, this notice is not a “rule” as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).
This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as that term is defined in EO 13132.
Incorporation by reference; Radio.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NTIA amends title 47, Part 300 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 901 et seq., Executive Order 12046 (March 27, 1978), 43 FR 13349, 3 CFR 1978 Comp., p. 158.
(b) The federal agencies shall comply with the requirements set forth in the January 2008 edition of the NTIA Manual, as revised through May 2011, which is incorporated by reference with approval of the Director, Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This final rule partially approves Framework Adjustment (FW) 46 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which increases the haddock incidental catch cap allocated to the Atlantic midwater trawl herring fishery to 1 percent of the Georges Bank (GB) haddock Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and to 1 percent of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) haddock ABC, thereby, adjusting final fishing year (FY) 2011 specifications for the other fishery components of these ABCs. In addition, this action modifies the method for estimating haddock catch in the herring fishery and the relevant accountability measures (AMs) such that, upon attainment of the cap, the midwater trawl herring fleet may not catch or land herring in excess of the incidental catch limit (2,000 lb (907.2 kg)) in or from the appropriate haddock stock area. In addition, in this action NMFS disapproves measures in FW 46 that would have required open access herring vessels using midwater trawl gear to report total kept catch, and notify the Office of Law Enforcement, prior to landing. NMFS also disapproves a measure to require all midwater trawl vessels to report gear used on each trip into the Gulf of Maine or Georges Bank. FW 46 was developed by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) to address the haddock incidental catch cap in the Atlantic herring fishery to allow the herring fishery to achieve optimum yield, by establishing a better opportunity to fully harvest the available herring quota, while providing incentives for the midwater trawl fishery to minimize haddock catch and, ensuring that haddock catch is adequately controlled and monitored.
This rule is effective September 14, 2011, except for § 648.10(l), which will become effective September 28, 2011.
Copies of FW 46, its Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the final environmental assessment (EA) prepared for this action, and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared by the Council are available from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this final rule and is comprised of the EA, the preamble, and the Classification sections of the final rule. The FW 46 EA/RIR/IRFA are also accessible via the Internet at
Melissa Vasquez, Fishery Policy Analyst,
A proposed rule to implement measures in FW 46 was published on July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42663), soliciting public comment through August 3, 2011. After review of all public comments, NMFS has approved several of the proposed measures in FW 46, determining that approved measures, as listed below, are consistent with the goals of the FMP as described in Amendment 16 to the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and other applicable laws. These final measures are unchanged from those that were proposed.
The Atlantic herring fishery is currently allocated a sub-Annual Catch Limit (ACL) of haddock that is equal to 0.2 percent of the combined GOM and GB haddock ABCs, to account for haddock that is incidentally caught in the herring fishery. When this cap is reached, herring vessels are restricted to an incidental possession limit of 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) of herring per trip in specific portions of the GOM and GB, which effectively closes these areas to directed herring fishing. The Council initiated FW 46 in January 2011 to address industry concerns that the haddock incidental catch cap was becoming too constraining on the herring fishery, particularly given the increased, healthy biomass of haddock on GB and the fact that the commercial groundfish fishery is not likely able to harvest its own sub-ACL for these stocks. An early effective closure of the directed herring fishery as a result of catching the incidental catch cap could result in thwarting fishery participants from potentially achieving optimum yield and limiting the supply of herring bait to the lobster fishery. For example, in FY 2010, the herring fishery was constrained by the cap and had to modify its behavior, which may have resulted in up to $5.5 million in foregone herring from Herring Management Area 3. Thus, the Council developed FW 46 to revise the haddock incidental catch cap for the Atlantic herring fishery to allow for the achievement of optimum yield through establishing a better opportunity to fully harvest the available herring quota, while providing incentives for the midwater trawl herring fishery to minimize haddock catch, and ensuring that haddock catch is adequately controlled and monitored. A complete discussion of the development of FW 46 and the pre-FW 46 haddock incidental catch cap measures and their rationale appears in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.
FW 46, as submitted by the Council, required all midwater trawl vessels (including any vessel issued an open access incidental herring permit (Category D)) to report total catch kept. NMFS has partially disapproved this measure as it applies to a Category D vessel, because it determined that additional reporting by Category D vessels is not necessary at this time and would be an unnecessary reporting burden contrary to National Standard 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, given that weekly VTR submissions (as implemented by a recent regulatory amendment to the Atlantic Herring FMP, 76 FR 54385; September 1, 2011) is sufficient to monitor this small component of the herring fishery.
In addition, although FW 46, as submitted by the Council, also required a midwater trawl vessel to report gear when reporting total kept catch prior to landing, in this rule, NMFS disapproves that measure because NMFS has determined that it would not be necessary for the timely monitoring of the proposed haddock incidental catch caps and, therefore, would be an unnecessary reporting burden contrary to National Standard 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Although FW 46, as submitted by the Council, proposed to expand the current pre-landing hail requirements to all vessels using midwater trawl gear, NMFS disapproves that measure as it applied to an open access herring permit holder (Category D). Because Category D permits represent a small portion of the herring fishery, accounting for very little of the Atlantic herring landings (0.5 percent in FY 2010), and rarely using midwater trawl gear in applicable Areas (Category A vessels accounted for all landings by midwater trawl gear in FY 2008-2010), NMFS believes that requiring pre-landing hails of Category D vessels is an unnecessary reporting burden at this time, and is contrary to National Standard 7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
To achieve the stated purposes of this action to maximize opportunities to fish for herring on GB, provide incentives to minimize the bycatch of haddock in the herring fishery, and reduce unnecessary economic impacts on the herring fishery, FW 46 replaces the current combined GOM and GB haddock incidental catch cap with separate stock-specific caps for the GOM and GB haddock stocks, equal to 1 percent of the GOM haddock ABC and 1 percent of the GB haddock ABC, respectively. These caps apply to all vessels with a Federal Atlantic herring permit of any category using midwater trawl gear (both single and paired midwater trawl vessels) in Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3. The stock-specific caps better account for differences between these two stocks and eliminate the possibility that catches of one stock could trigger the closure of both stock areas. The amount of the cap is calculated according to the procedures established by Amendment 16 for the setting of ACLs and sub-ACLs for various components of the fishery for each stock, and the cap calculation method revised by FW 44 to the FMP (see Appendix III to FW 44, available on the Council's
As noted in FW 46, these final measures are being implemented in-season, after the beginning of the 2011 Northeast multispecies (May 1, 2011-April 30, 2012) and herring (January 1, 2011-December 31, 2011) fishing years (FY). Therefore, this final rule revises the FY 2011 and FY 2012 sub-ACLs specified for the GOM haddock and GB haddock stocks in the FW 44 and FW 45 final rules, respectively (75 FR 18356; April 9, 2010 and 76 FR 23042; April 25, 2011) (see Table 1). The sub-ACLs published here supersede all other sub-ACLs specified for GOM and GB haddock in previous rules. Given that the haddock cap for the midwater trawl herring fishery is monitored based on the groundfish FY, upon publication of this final rule, NMFS will use observer data and other available data and information from applicable herring trips to estimate haddock catches by the herring fishery since the start of FY 2011 (beginning May 1, 2011). The catch estimate will then be counted against the increased stock-specific haddock caps.
This final rule revises the current haddock catch cap monitoring requirements such that only the haddock catches from vessels issued a Federal Atlantic herring permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear in Atlantic Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3 (GOM and GB) will be counted against the incidental haddock catch caps. Haddock catch reported by observers on observed herring trips using midwater trawl gear in Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3 will be extrapolated to estimate total haddock catch by the herring midwater trawl fleet in these herring management areas, for purposes of monitoring the attainment of each stock-specific cap. This extrapolation method contrasts to monitoring methods used prior to this rule, in which haddock caught was derived only from summing the reports of observers, dealers, vessels, and law enforcement officials.
FW 46 states that NMFS will develop the extrapolation methodology and post it on the Northeast Regional Office
A vessel with a Category A and/or B Atlantic herring permit is still required to land all haddock brought on deck or pumped into the hold, and may land up to 100 lb (45 kg) total of other regulated NE multispecies (§ 648.86(k)) per trip, but is prohibited from selling any groundfish for human consumption. In addition, these groundfish possession restrictions are revised to allow a Category C or D vessel and fishing any part of a trip with midwater trawl gear in Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, or 3, to possess and land haddock and up to 100 lb (45 kg) of other groundfish, consistent with the revised scope of the cap. Consistent with the current requirements for a Category A or B vessel, such a Category C or D vessel is required to land all haddock, but is prohibited from selling it for human consumption. Additionally, NMFS has revised the regulations at § 648.86(k) to clarify that the 100 lb (45 kg) NE multispecies possession limit is meant to apply to NE. multispecies other than haddock.
FW 46 eliminates the current AM where all vessels issued an Atlantic herring permit are prohibited from possessing or landing herring in excess of the incidental herring limit in the entire GOM/GB Herring Exemption Area, once the combined GOM/GB haddock cap is reached. FW 46 instead establishes smaller, stock-specific AM areas (the “Herring GOM Haddock AM Area” and the “Herring GB Haddock AM Area”), which would only apply to a herring vessel using midwater trawl gear in the GOM and GB, upon attainment of the cap. The intent of this measure is to make the haddock catch caps less constraining on the herring fishery by accounting for differences between the haddock stocks, and by limiting the AMs to the herring midwater trawl fleet, which has been primarily responsible for haddock catches in the herring fishery. If the Regional Administrator determines that the haddock incidental catch cap for a specific haddock stock has been caught, any vessel issued a herring permit and using midwater trawl gear would be prohibited from fishing for, possessing, or landing herring in excess of 2,000 lb (907.2 kg) per trip in or from the applicable AM Area (see Tables 2 and 3). Additionally, the haddock possession/landing limit for the applicable AM Area would be reduced to 0 lb (0 kg) for herring midwater trawl vessels and all Category A and B vessels. For example, if the GOM haddock catch cap were reached, the herring possession limit would be reduced to the incidental catch level (2,000 lb (907 kg)) in the Herring GOM Haddock AM Area (see Table 2) for any vessel issued a herring permit and fishing any part of a trip with midwater trawl gear. Upon reaching the fishery haddock cap, a Category A or B vessel (regardless of gear used) or a Category C or D vessel fishing with midwater trawl gear would not be able to possess/land any haddock, but would still be able to land up to 100 lb (45 kg) of other NE. multispecies from the applicable AM area. In addition, in this example, a midwater trawl vessel would still be able to retain herring in or from areas of 1A, 1B, or 3 that do not overlap with the Herring GOM Haddock AM Area. A herring vessel that fishes both inside and outside of an AM Area for which the haddock cap has been triggered on a given trip would be required to comply with the most restrictive measures, meaning the vessel is restricted to the 2,000 lb (907 kg) herring possession limit for that trip. The reduced haddock possession/landing limit would not apply to a herring vessel that also holds a NE multispecies permit when it is on a declared NE. multispecies trip.
FW 46 implements an automatic haddock sub-ACL reduction as an additional AM, if the herring midwater trawl fishery haddock catch exceeds the incidental catch cap for the AM area in a given FY. If it is determined that the total catch of haddock by herring midwater trawl vessels exceeds either of the herring midwater trawl fishery GOM or GB haddock sub-ACLs for a FY, that sub-ACL would be reduced by the amount of the overage in the following FY. For example, if final accounting of the FY 2011 total haddock midwater trawl catch in the GOM haddock stock area indicates that the GOM haddock incidental catch cap had been exceeded by 5 mt, the FY 2012 GOM haddock sub-ACL for the herring midwater trawl fishery would be reduced by 5 mt to account for the overage that occurred during FY 2011. Any reductions to the midwater trawl haddock sub-ACLs would be announced by NMFS, consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in the
Any vessel with a limited access herring permit (Category A, B, and C
The Council has initiated development of Amendment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP, which considers several alternatives that address interactions between the herring fishery and the groundfish fishery, and measures designed to improve catch monitoring. If approved, Amendment 5 would likely modify monitoring and reporting requirements for the herring fishery, including those that NMFS will use to monitor the proposed haddock incidental catch caps. Therefore, this rule provides the authority to the Regional Administrator to revise the reporting requirements implemented through this final rule, if the RA determines that revisions to such requirements are necessary to allow for the effective monitoring of the haddock incidental catch caps.
Any Category A and B vessel intending to use midwater trawl or purse seine gear on a declared herring trip, and any vessel issued a Category C and/or D herring permit and intending to fish or fishing any part of a trip with midwater trawl gear in Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, or 3, is now required to notify the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) at least 72 hrs prior to beginning a trip, and declare whether or not it intends to fish any part of a trip in Closed Area I (CAI).
A vessel issued a Category A or B permit, and on a declared herring trip fishing with midwater trawl or purse seine gear, and a vessel issued a Category C permit that fishes any part of a trip with midwater trawl gear in Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, is now required to notify the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement through VMS of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hrs prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line, or at least 6 hrs prior to landing, if fishing inside the VMS demarcation line.
Any federally permitted herring dealer or processor (including at-sea processors) that culls or separates out non-herring catch in the course of normal operations is now required to separate out all haddock offloaded from any vessel issued any Federal herring permit that fished in Herring Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3 with midwater trawl gear, and any vessel issued a Category A and/or B permit, regardless of gear used or area fished. In addition, such haddock may not be sold for any purpose and must be retained for at least 12 hrs on land to allow inspection by enforcement officials.
This final rule also revises the CA I restrictions regarding observers and net slippage for midwater trawl vessels, which are currently applicable to only Category A and B herring permit holders, by expanding these restrictions to any vessel issued a herring permit that fishes with midwater trawl gear in CA I. Thus, any vessel issued a herring permit is prohibited from fishing in CA I with midwater trawl gear without an observer. In addition, no vessel issued a herring permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear in CA I may release fish from the codend of the net, transfer fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer, or otherwise discard fish at sea, unless the fish has first been brought aboard the vessel and made available for sampling and inspection by the observer. All exemptions from the current requirements continue to apply to any vessel now subject to these restrictions.
There were six comments received on the proposed measures from one member of the public, three fishing industry organizations, and two coalitions of fishing and marine industry and environmental. Four commenters generally or partially supported the proposed measures, and two commenters generally opposed the action.
NMFS agrees with the Council that the haddock catch cap is an effective measure to create incentives to avoid haddock and, thus, has approved the catch cap for the herring fishery. NMFS believes, in light of Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions as discussed above, that the revised cap represents a better balance of controlling incidental catch and bycatch of haddock and other stocks, reducing uncertainty in the fishery, and providing the herring fishery a better opportunity to achieve optimum yield. Although maintaining the current cap at 0.2 percent of the combined GOM and GB haddock ABCs may have created a greater incentive for the midwater trawl fleet to avoid haddock, due to the lower relative current amount, this alternative was not practicable because it failed to meet other stated objectives of FW 46 and competing National Standards discussed above. Moreover, the approved measures increase the haddock catch cap, and revise the cap and associated AMs to be specific to those areas and gears that are primarily responsible for haddock catches, thereby substantially reducing the risk of negative economic impacts to the entire herring fleet, while still maintaining an incentive for that component of the fishery to avoid haddock. While the haddock catch cap is increased from 0.2 to 1 percent, a separate cap is established for each haddock stock, eliminating the possibility that the entire cap could be caught in one haddock stock area and threaten mortality targets for that haddock stock. Furthermore, FW 46 introduces a more comprehensive and effective method for more accurately estimating haddock catches across the fleet that will provide more direct control on total haddock catches by the midwater trawl fishery and reduce uncertainty for the herring fishery. Because this new method significantly differs from the current method of merely summing actual observed catches, it is not possible to conclude that the 1-percent haddock cap will result in a five-fold increase in the amount of haddock that may be caught by the herring fishery, as alleged by the commenters. For example, extrapolating haddock catches observed in 2006 under the current method showed that the estimated total catch of haddock was potentially nearly four times the 0.2-percent cap. Since the existing cap only counted observed catches of haddock, it did not monitor the overall catches of haddock by the entire fleet. In fact, when all of these changes are considered together, Framework 46 should result in more direct control on the total haddock catch by the fleet than the current 0.2-percent cap.
Furthermore, as described in the EA, the magnitude of catches from one stock area, as a proportion of biomass of these stocks, is not likely to have negative biological impacts on the status of the haddock stocks, or any effect on the populations of marine mammals or seabirds. In contrast, the revised haddock cap measures are likely to provide substantial economic benefits to the herring fishery, when compared to the no action alternative, without any negative biological impacts. Given these social and economic benefits, and that there is almost no likelihood of negative biological impacts, FW 46 achieves its stated objectives while minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standards.
The herring fishery may be expected to be constrained under the current system more in future years than in the past. Although the herring fishery has not previously come close to achieving the cap, except for FY 2010, the herring fishery effort may be expected to increase in Area 3 as a result of area TAC allocations specified for the herring fishery in recent years. The Council reduced Area 1A TAC allocations through the FY 2010-2012 herring fishery specifications (75 FR 48874; August 12, 2010) to address concerns about the disproportionate amount of effort that exists on this inshore component of the herring stock, despite the fact that its constitutes only approximately 18 percent of the available biomass. The EA for the 2010-2012 herring specifications noted that higher Area 3 TACs (compared to Area 1A) might provide an opportunity for the herring fleet to regain yield lost from the Area 1A TAC reductions, but raised concerns that this effort might be inhibited by haddock bycatch measures. Given these steps by the Council to shift herring fishery effort to the offshore stock component, and continued declines in both herring and haddock stock biomasses and, subsequently, sub-ACLs, the herring fishery may be expected to bump up against the cap more frequently in future years under the no action alternative.
NMFS cannot prevent the Council from considering or proposing future changes to the haddock catch cap for the herring fishery. However, as noted above, any such change must be consistent with applicable law, including the competing mandates and considerations set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act under National Standards 1, 8, and 9. If any future changes to the haddock catch cap for the herring fishery are proposed, NMFS will evaluate that action on its own merit, independent from any previous management action, based on these and other national standards and applicable law, and consider further public
Regarding the suggestions to disapprove the measure or require a 75-percent reduction in haddock bycatch from previous years, NMFS can only approve, disapprove, or partially approve a Council action, but cannot modify the measures proposed in FW 46. Reducing the haddock cap by 75 percent from previous years represents a new management proposal and, as such, would require consideration and action by the Council as well as an opportunity for public comment on the measure. NMFS approved the measures proposed in FW 46 because they are consistent with the objectives of FW 46 and the NE Multispecies FMP, and other applicable laws, and will allow the prosecution of the herring fishery, while minimizing haddock catches by the herring fishery to the extent practicable.
The Council intended that the cap measures apply to all midwater trawl vessels, regardless of herring permit category, because this is the gear with documented catches of haddock. Although only Category A and B vessels have documented landings with midwater trawl gear, there is no prohibition on Category C or D vessels using midwater trawl gear, which is the gear most likely to catch haddock incidentally. The application of the measures to a Category C or D vessel imposes no burden unless such vessel chooses to use midwater trawl gear, in which case the relevance of the regulations are justified. Furthermore, future modifications to the Atlantic Herring FMP may change incentives and result in changes in fishing practices, such that Category C and/or D vessels begin to target herring using midwater trawl gear. If Category C and D midwater trawl vessels were excluded from these measures at this time, such changes in fishing behavior might undermine the FW 46 measures in the future. Thus, NMFS has approved FW 46 measures regarding Category C and D vessels, as proposed, because they are preventative in nature and consistent with the stated objectives of the action. However, the FW 46 requirements (including reporting requirements) only apply to vessels with Category C and D permits when fishing with midwater trawl gear in Areas 1A, 1B and/or 3. Category C or D vessels fishing with purse seine or otter trawl gear, or midwater trawl gear in Area 2, will be unaffected by this action.
Currently, the herring trips applied to the haddock catch cap are updated on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of data. NMFS intends to continue to update the haddock catch cap monitoring pages on its
The EA addressed the issue of localized haddock and other groundfish depletion by examining the presence and absence of groundfish fishing effort in an area before and after midwater trawl fishing effort in Section 8.4.2. The EA concluded that a strong relationship could not be determined, but the analysis did not support the idea that groundfish effort is displaced by midwater trawl activity, suggesting that groundfish may still be present in an area after midwater trawl activity.
Finally, it is not clear what bycatch reduction or mitigation strategies the commenter is referring to that could have been incorporated into the practicability analysis. The Council did not consider gear modifications or other reduction strategies in the development of FW 46, and it is not clear how the EA analysis could predict the extent to which any bycatch reduction or mitigation strategies would be undertaken by herring vessels in response to the cap, except to cease fishing operations in Area 3, as they did in FY 2010. The EA analysis concluded that the level of bycatch associated with the proposed action was practicable according to the National Standard Guidelines because the stock-specific caps would eliminate the remote possibility that the entire cap could be caught in the GOM haddock stock area and, thus, there would be almost no likelihood that haddock bycatch associated with the proposed action would have any impacts on the status of haddock stocks, or any effect on the population status of marine mammals or seabirds. It concluded further that the stock-specific caps will incentivize the midwater trawl fishery to reduce incidental catch and bycatch of haddock by avoiding fishing in areas and times where haddock are encountered in order to avoid an effective closure of the directed herring fishery. In addition, the increased, separate caps increased the likelihood that the herring GB quota would be harvested, providing opportunity for the herring fishery to achieve optimum yield, minimizing impacts on fishing practices and providing economic and cultural benefits.
In contrast, the EA concluded that the no action alternative, which maintained the current cap measures, was not practicable according to National Standard 9. The EA concluded that, although bycatch of haddock and other species under the current system would likely be lower than under the increased cap because the current cap would be more constraining if observer coverage levels remain high, there existed a small risk that a large portion of the shared cap could be caught in the GOM, threatening mortality targets for the GOM haddock stock. In addition, the current shared cap would have adverse effects on the economic, social, and cultural status of the herring fishery, which are mitigated under the increased stock-specific caps.
Thus, the approved measures represent a balance between allowing the herring fishery opportunity to achieve optimum yield, while providing incentives for the midwater trawl fishery to minimize haddock catch, and ensuring that haddock catch is adequately controlled and monitored.
Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of the APA. The Atlantic herring fishery is allocated a portion of the allowable catch of GOM and GB haddock each year, to account for incidental catch of haddock in the herring midwater trawl fleet. When this cap is reached or exceeded, all herring vessels are restricted to very low incidental possession limits for herring in a large portion of their fishing grounds in the GOM and GB, thereby effectively closing the areas to directed fishing because such low possession limits do not permit an economically viable fishing trip. In FY 2010, the catch of haddock primarily by the herring midwater trawl fleet reached approximately 81 percent of the haddock catch cap, and in October 2010, the herring midwater trawl fleet voluntarily moved to avoid fishing in areas with high haddock catch. As a result, fishing and processing operations were unnecessarily interrupted and the industry likely incurred increased operational costs. In addition, some of the GB herring TAC was not harvested, potentially resulting in lost economic yield for a large portion of the Atlantic herring fishery. This final rule implements measures in FW 46 that increase the haddock catch cap, thus reducing the risk that the cap would be constraining. If the stock-specific cap is reached, midwater trawl fishing for herring in that stock area would be restricted—unlike the current combined cap that, if reached, closes a large portion of the GOM and GB area to the entire herring fishery.
Summer and early fall are typically when herring fishery effort on GB and interactions with haddock are highest. Beginning in September, the restrictive haddock catch cap may force the herring fleet to curtail prematurely its fishing operations in Area 3 in order to avoid triggering the AMs. It is important that the revised haddock catch cap and accountability measures be implemented as soon as possible, before October 2011, in order to avert an effective early end to the herring fishing season on GB. After September 2011 these measures would have limited utility to herring fishery participants until summer 2012. Thus, delaying implementation would result in short-term adverse economic impacts to Atlantic herring vessels and associated shoreside facilities and fishing communities.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
This final rule does not contain policies with Federalism or “takings” implications as those terms are defined in E.O. 13132 and E.O. 12630, respectively.
A FRFA was prepared for this final rule, as required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The FRFA, which includes the summary in this rule and the analyses contained in FW 46 and its accompanying EA/RIR/FRFA, describes the economic impact the measures proposed in FW 46 would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in FW 46 and the preamble to this rule.
No issues were raised by public comments specifically in response to the IRFA or with respect to the economic impacts of this action. Accordingly, no changes were made from the proposed rule as the result of any such comments.
Regulated entities include businesses owning vessels engaged in the Atlantic herring and NE multispecies fisheries. These measures would affect regulated entities engaged in commercial fishing for herring. Because the measures reduce the available GOM and GB haddock ABC for the groundfish fishery, vessels permitted in this fishery are potentially regulated by this action. However, because only approximately 17 percent of the haddock GOM and GB ABCs was landed in FY 2010 (and similar under-capture of available quota is expected in FY 2011-2012), it is not expected that NE multispecies permitted vessels would be affected by this action in the near-term or foreseeable future. The size standard for commercial fishing entities (NAICS code 114111) is $4 million in sales. Although multiple vessels may be owned by a single owner, available tracking of ownership is not readily available to reliably ascertain affiliated entities. Therefore, for purposes of analysis, each permitted vessel is treated as a single entity. In 2008 and 2009, one vessel exceeded $4 million in gross sales in each year, while in 2010, two vessels exceeded that threshold amount. During calendar year 2010, 86 vessels were issued a limited access herring permit. Therefore, because 2 entities operating in 2010 exceeded the gross sales threshold defining a large entity, 84 small commercial fishing entities were both regulated and potentially affected by the proposed action.
In total, six alternatives to the action implemented by this final rule were considered during the development of FW 46. Detailed descriptions of all the alternatives considered are available in the FW 46 EA (See
The economic impacts of this action on affected regulated small entities are positive and not different from economic impacts to large entities. NMFS disapproved measures as they apply to open access vessels that would have resulted in differential impacts to entities that represent a de minimus portion of the directed herring fishery. This action would have no short-term measurable economic impacts to vessels participating in the groundfish fishery, because it implements small allocations of haddock to the herring fishery that would have no effect on current groundfish revenues, based on most recent fishing activities, and only minor effects, if any, on possible future revenues, as these small allocations are unlikely to constrain the groundfish fishery or allow the herring fishery to displace groundfish effort. This action is likely to have a positive impact on large and small vessels participating in the Atlantic herring fishery, as it greatly reduces the possibility that a haddock catch cap would result in AMs that restrict the fishery to incidental catch limits throughout a large portion of the GOM and GB. This is because, unlike the no action alternative, the measures implemented by this final rule increase the haddock catch cap applicable to the herring fishery. Based on observed levels of haddock bycatch in the herring fishery and recent reductions in herring fishing effort (through greatly reduced ACLs in 2010), a 1-percent haddock catch cap is unlikely to be reached in the short-term, but provides a backstop and establishes a mechanism to estimate fleet-wide bycatch on a real-time basis. This will provide more effective controls over the bycatch of haddock in the herring fishery compared to the no action alternative. In addition, contrary to existing measures that would be maintained under the no action alternative, this action separates the GOM and GB haddock stocks and related catch, thereby reducing the overall impact of an effective directed fishery closure, if one were to occur. It also eliminates impacts on purse seine and otter trawl vessels (typically smaller fishing operations) by restricting the cap and the AM to midwater trawl vessels only. Because this action makes it more likely that the haddock catch cap will not constrain herring fishing beyond levels anticipated in the Atlantic Herring FMP, this action will not result in a decline in revenue for the herring fishery and may increase fishing opportunities for the herring mid-water trawl fleet regardless of size for several months relative to baseline conditions that would result if the no action alternative would be maintained. Opportunities to prosecute the offshore fishery (Area 3, GB) and fully harvest the herring optimum yield should be higher under the proposed action than under baseline conditions. The precise magnitude of the positive impact is uncertain, though the offshore areas (Areas 2 and 3) of the herring fishery generated approximately $17 million in gross herring revenues in calendar year 2009, and the revenues from fishing trips expected to be unconstrained due to the proposed action represent a relatively small fraction of that total.
This action and alternatives are described in detail in FW 46, which includes an EA, RIR, and FRFA (See
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the PRA. The requirement for limited access vessels using midwater trawl gear to report total kept catch via daily VMS catch reports has been approved by OMB on September 6, 2011, under OMB Control Number 0648-0202. This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.
This action would expand some reporting requirements implemented through FW 43 to monitor the current herring fishery haddock incidental catch cap, to include additional herring permit categories. Limited access herring permit holders fishing with midwater trawl gear in Herring Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3 would be required to report total kept catch by haddock stock area via daily VMS catch reports. The proposed Atlantic herring regulatory amendment would require daily VMS catch reporting by limited access herring vessels for quota monitoring purposes, and the burden to the public of those catch report submissions has been analyzed in that regulatory amendment (76 FR 34947; June 15, 2011). This action would modify that proposed report to add two additional fields and thereby increase the cost per submission for limited access vessels that fish with midwater trawl gear in the GOM or on GB. Based on historic participation in the herring midwater trawl fishery, this change is expected to increase the total annual burden to the public for herring VMS catch reporting by $160 to $2,482, or $26 per entity. This action would also expand the requirements for Category A and B vessels to notify the Northeast Fishery Observer Program by phone of their intent to take a trip, and to submit a pre-landing hail to enforcement via VMS, to additional permit categories when fishing with midwater trawl gear in the GOM or on GB. However, no Category C or D vessels have reported landing herring or mackerel using midwater trawl gear in the GOM or GB. Thus, based on historic participation in the herring midwater trawl fishery, this action would not be expected to change the reporting burden associated with these requirements. In addition, applying the requirement to submit a CA I Midwater Trawl Codend Release Affidavit to additional permit categories is not expected to change the reporting burden associated with this affidavit, based on historic participation in the CA I herring fishery.
Public reporting burden for these requirements includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(l)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
3. In § 648.14, revise paragraphs (k)(1)(i)(D); (r)(1)(vi)(A), (B), and (C); (r)(1)(vii)(E); (r)(1)(viii)(B); and (r)(2)(i) through (v); and add paragraphs (r)(1)(vi)(E) and (F) to read as follows:
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Any haddock, and up to 100 lb (45 kg) of other regulated NE. multispecies other than haddock, were harvested by a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Area 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit that fished with midwater trawl gear, pursuant to the requirements in § 648.80(d) and (e), and such fish are not sold for human consumption.
(r) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) For the purposes of observer deployment, fail to notify NMFS at least 72 hr prior to departing on a declared herring trip with a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Area 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit and fishing with midwater trawl or purse seine gear, or on a trip with a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit that is fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined in § 648.200(f)(1) and (3), pursuant to the requirements in § 648.80(d) and (e).
(B) Possess, land, transfer, receive, sell, purchase, trade, or barter; or attempt to transfer, receive, sell, purchase, trade, or barter, or sell more than 2,000 lb (907 kg) of Atlantic herring per trip taken from the Herring GOM Haddock Accountability Measure Area and/or the Herring GB Haddock Accountability Measure Area, defined in § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(
(C) Transit the Herring GOM Haddock Accountability Measure Area and/or the Herring GB Haddock Accountability Measure Area, defined in § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(
(E) Possess or land haddock taken from the Herring GOM Haddock Accountability Measure Area and/or the Herring GB Haddock Accountability Measure Area, defined in § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(
(F) Transit the Herring GOM Haddock Accountability Measure Area and/or the Herring GB Haddock Accountability Measure Area, defined in § 648.86(a)(3)(ii)(A)(
(vii) * * *
(E) Discard haddock at sea that has been brought on deck, or pumped into the hold, of a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or on a trip with a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit fishing with midwater trawl gear, pursuant to the requirements in § 648.80(d) and (e).
(viii) * * *
(B) Fail to notify the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement of the time and date of landing via VMS at least 6 hr prior to landing herring at the end of a declared herring trip, if a vessel has an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit and is fishing with either midwater trawl or purse seine gear, or a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and is fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined in § 648.200(f)(1) and (3).
(2) * * *
(i) Sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer haddock or other regulated NE. multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, white hake, and Atlantic wolffish); or attempt to sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer haddock or other regulated NE. multispecies for human consumption; if the regulated NE. multispecies are landed by a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or by a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit fishing with midwater trawl gear pursuant to § 648.80(d).
(ii) Fail to comply with requirements for herring processors/dealers that handle individual fish to separate out, and retain, for at least 12 hr, all haddock offloaded from a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit that fished on a declared herring trip regardless of gear or area fished, or by a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit that fished with midwater trawl gear pursuant to § 648.80(d).
(iii) Sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer; or attempt to sell, purchase, receive, trade, barter, or transfer; to another person, any haddock or other regulated NE. multispecies (cod, witch flounder, plaice, yellowtail flounder, pollock, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, redfish, white hake, and Atlantic wolffish) separated out from a herring catch offloaded from a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit that fished on a declared herring trip regardless of gear or area fished, or by a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit that fished with midwater trawl gear pursuant to § 648.80(d).
(iv) While operating as an at-sea herring processor, fail to comply with requirements to separate out and retain all haddock offloaded from a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit that fished on a declared herring trip regardless of gear or area fished, or by a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit that fished with midwater trawl gear pursuant to § 648.80(d).
(v) Fish with midwater trawl gear in Closed Area I, as specified at § 648.81(a), without a NMFS approved observer onboard, if the vessel has been issued an Atlantic herring permit.
(d)
(e)
(d) * * *
(4) The vessel does not fish for, possess or land NE. multispecies, except that a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit and fishing on a declared herring trip, regardless of gear or area fished, or a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, may possess and land haddock
(5) To fish for herring under this exemption, a vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip, or a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and/or an Open Access Herring Permit fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined in § 648.200(f)(1) and (3), must provide notice of the following information to NMFS at least 72 hr prior to beginning any trip into these areas for the purposes of observer deployment: Vessel name; contact name for coordination of observer deployment; telephone number for contact; the date, time, and port of departure; and whether the vessel intends to engage in fishing in Closed Area I, as defined in § 648.81(a), at any point in the trip; and
(6) A vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip with midwater trawl gear, or a vessel issued a Limited Access Incidental Catch Herring Permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear in Management Areas 1A, 1B, and/or 3, as defined at § 648.200(f)(1) and (3), must notify NMFS Office of Law Enforcement through VMS of the time and place of offloading at least 6 hr prior to crossing the VMS demarcation line on their return trip to port, or, for a vessel that has not fished seaward of the VMS demarcation line, at least 6 hr prior to landing. The Regional Administrator may adjust the prior notification minimum time through publication of a notice in the
(7)
(ii) No vessel issued a Federal Atlantic herring permit and fishing with midwater trawl gear, when fishing any part of a midwater trawl tow in Closed Area I, may release fish from the codend of the net, transfer fish to another vessel that is not carrying a NMFS-approved observer (
(e) * * *
(4) The vessel does not fish for, possess, or land NE. multispecies, except that vessels that have an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit fishing on a declared herring trip may possess and land haddock or other regulated species consistent with possession restrictions in § 648.86(a)(3) and (k), respectively. Such haddock or other regulated multispecies may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for, or intended for, human consumption. Haddock or other regulated species that are separated out from the herring catch pursuant to § 648.15(d) may not be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred, or attempted to be sold, purchased, received, traded, bartered, or transferred for any purpose. A vessel issued an All Areas Limited Access Herring Permit and/or an Areas 2 and 3 Limited Access Herring Permit may not discard haddock that has been brought on the deck or pumped into the hold;
(d)
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i)
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(
(
(
(k)
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D)
(5) * * *
(iii)
(a) * * *
(2) If NMFS determines that the GOM and/or GB incidental catch cap for
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule and referendum order.
This rule proposes four amendments to Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983 (order), which regulates the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and provides growers with the opportunity to vote in a referendum to determine if they favor the changes. The amendments are based on proposals by the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee), which is responsible for local administration of the order. The amendments would provide authority to establish aflatoxin and quality regulations for pistachios shipped to export markets, including authority to establish different regulations for different markets. These amendments are intended to provide authority to ensure uniform and consistent aflatoxin and quality regulations in the domestic and various export markets.
The referendum will be conducted from October 3 through October 14, 2011. The representative period for the purpose of the referendum is September 1, 2010, through August 31, 2011.
Martin Engeler, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; 2202 Monterey Street, Fresno, California 93721;
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Laurel May, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, both as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios produced in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900) authorize amendment of the order through this informal rulemaking action.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Section 1504 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110-246) made changes to section 18c(17) of the Act, which in turn required the addition of supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR part 900 (73 FR 49307; August, 21, 2008). The changes to section 18c(17) of the Act and additional supplemental rules of practice authorize the use of informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to amend federal fruit, vegetable, and nut marketing agreements and orders if certain criteria are met.
AMS has considered the nature and complexity of the proposed amendments, the potential regulatory and economic impacts on affected entities, and other relevant matters, and has determined that amending the order as proposed by the committee could appropriately be accomplished through informal rulemaking.
The proposed amendments were unanimously recommended by the Committee following deliberations at a public meeting on July 9, 2010. A proposed rule soliciting comments on the proposed amendments was issued on June 5, 2011, and published in the
The Committee's proposed amendments would: (1) Provide authority to establish aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements for shipments of pistachios to export markets, including authority to establish different regulations for different markets; (2) Provide authority to establish quality and inspection requirements for shipments of pistachios to export markets, including authority to establish different regulations for different markets; (3) Change a related section of the order concerning substandard pistachios to conform to the proposed addition of export authority; and (4) Correct an erroneous cross-reference to another section of the order.
Section 983.50 of the order provides authority to establish aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios shipped for domestic human consumption. Section 983.150 of the order's administrative rules and regulations establishes such requirements. These regulations prohibit the shipment of pistachios for domestic human consumption unless they have been sampled and tested according to specific procedures and protocols, and certified that they do not contain traces of aflatoxin exceeding a tolerance level of 15 parts per billion (ppb). The aflatoxin regulations under the order are intended to help assure consumers of a good quality product and to reduce the risk of potential aflatoxin contamination. While authority exists to establish aflatoxin regulations for domestic shipments of pistachios, no such authority exists under the order for export shipments. This proposed amendment would add authority to establish aflatoxin regulations for shipments of pistachios to export markets.
When the order was promulgated in 2004, a State of California marketing agreement was in effect that provided aflatoxin testing and certification for export shipments to designated markets. Under that program, handlers tested and certified export shipments according to the methods and protocols acceptable to the export destination. Thus, the authority to regulate export shipments was not included in the order to avoid duplication. The State program served the needs of the industry for several years, but was terminated in 2010. Although handlers continue to test and certify product prior to shipping into export markets, there is currently no program in place to establish uniform and consistent procedures.
The export market is becoming increasingly important to the U.S. pistachio industry to market its continually increasing production. Pistachio acreage and production in the U.S. has been increasing steadily since the crop became commercially significant in the 1970's. This upward trend has continued since the order was promulgated, and is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. According to information reported by the Committee, in 2004 pistachio bearing acreage in California was 93,000 acres and non-bearing acreage was 24,733 acres, for a total of 117,773 acres. In 2010, bearing acreage was 137,102 acres and non-bearing acreage was 78,234, for a total of 215,336 acres. This represents an 83 percent increase in total acreage in just six years. The increased plantings are a response to the growing demand for U.S. pistachios, especially in export markets. A review of Committee shipment data indicates a substantial increase in shipments to export markets has occurred in recent years. Export shipments of open inshell pistachios increased from 95,761,666 pounds in the 2004-05 shipping season to 192,436,136 pounds in the 2009-10 season. Exports represented approximately 63 percent of total U.S. pistachio shipments during the 2009-10 season, underscoring the importance of the export market to the industry.
In view of the new plantings of pistachios as represented by the non-bearing acreage data, it is readily apparent that the production of U.S. pistachios will increase significantly in coming years. Successful marketing of the crop in the future will be dependent not only on sustaining current markets, but increasing the global demand to absorb the increased production. In order to accomplish this, it is important to reduce the risk of an aflatoxin incident involving U.S. pistachios.
In the mid-1990's, heightened consumer concern about aflatoxin occurred in Europe which resulted in a significant drop in pistachio consumption in those markets. Issues involving other commodities have also occurred in recent years, with adverse impacts. The pistachio industry thus believes it would be prudent to avail itself of an additional tool that could be used to reduce the risk of potential aflatoxin incidence in U.S. pistachios and the associated negative impacts.
Although pistachios destined for export markets are currently being tested and certified based on the requirements in those markets and customer's needs, there is currently no program in place with government oversight to ensure all handlers are following specific established protocols and procedures. Adding authority to the order to allow issuance of rules and regulations for aflatoxin testing and certification for export shipments would provide a mechanism to establish uniform and consistent aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements for shipments of domestically produced pistachios to export markets. A program with consistent and uniform procedures, with Federal oversight, would help instill confidence with foreign customers and government officials that the U.S. pistachio industry is committed to providing a good quality product to its markets that match or exceed the standards of the importing country.
The intent of the proposed amendments authorizing aflatoxin regulation for exports is to provide an additional tool under the order to aid in successful marketing of future crops.
The various export markets to which pistachios are shipped often have different requirements, such as allowable aflatoxin tolerance levels. Thus, the Committee also recommended adding authority to the order to establish different aflatoxin regulations for different markets. The proposed amendment would therefore authorize different regulations for different markets.
If the order is amended to include authority to establish aflatoxin regulations for shipments to export markets, specific regulations would need to be added to the order's rules and regulations through the informal rulemaking process. If the industry chooses to pursue such regulations, the Committee would meet to consider and analyze the available information in developing any recommendation to AMS. Any recommendation of the Committee concerning potential aflatoxin regulations would require a unanimous vote of 12 Committee members or alternate members acting in their stead according to the voting requirements in § 983.43 of the order.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 983.50, Aflatoxin regulations, be amended to authorize the Committee, with approval of the Secretary, to establish aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements for pistachios to be shipped for human consumption in export markets. It is also proposed that § 983.50 of the order be amended to authorize the Committee, with approval of the Secretary, to establish different aflatoxin requirements for different markets.
Section 983.51 of the order provides authority for the Committee, with approval of the Secretary, to establish quality and inspection requirements for pistachios shipped for domestic human consumption. There are currently no such requirements in effect under the order.
When the order was promulgated in 2004, specific requirements pertaining to quality levels were contained in the provisions of the order. These provisions were in effect from 2004 through 2007. In December 2007, the requirements were suspended because they were no longer meeting the
Applying similar logic, the Committee recommended at its July 2010 meeting to amend the broad quality authority under the order to include the authority to establish requirements for export shipments, in addition to domestic shipments. No quality regulations are currently being contemplated by the industry; however, the Committee believes it would be prudent to expand the current authority for quality regulations to include export shipments. Adding broad authority for quality regulations for exports would provide flexibility in the order by increasing the industry's ability to respond to quality issues related to exports, if they arise. Exports are becoming an increasingly important market for the industry and currently account for the marketing of nearly two-thirds of domestically produced pistachios.
The Committee also recommended adding authority to the order to establish different quality requirements for different markets. Similar to the discussion under Proposal Number 1, different markets to which pistachios are shipped may have different quality requirements or concerns. The proposed amendment would therefore authorize different quality regulations for different markets. This would provide additional flexibility to the order to address different market needs.
If the order is amended to include authority to establish quality regulations for shipments to export markets, specific regulations would need to be added to the order's rules and regulations through the informal rulemaking process. If the industry chooses to pursue such regulations, the Committee would meet to consider and analyze the available information in developing a recommendation to AMS. Any recommendation of the Committee concerning potential quality regulations would require a unanimous vote of 12 Committee members or alternate members acting in their stead according to the voting requirements in § 983.43 of the order.
For the reasons stated above, it is proposed that § 983.51, Quality regulations, be amended to authorize the Committee, with approval of the Secretary, to establish quality and inspection requirements for pistachios to be shipped for human consumption in export markets. It is also proposed that § 983.51 of the order be amended to authorize the Committee, with approval of the Secretary, to establish different quality requirements for different markets.
Section 983.57 of the order provides authority to establish reporting and disposition procedures for pistachios that do not meet aflatoxin or quality requirements (substandard product) to ensure they are not shipped for domestic human consumption. Since the order currently authorizes regulation of the domestic market only, § 983.57 does not reference the utilization of reporting and disposition procedures to ensure that substandard pistachios are not shipped to other markets besides the domestic market. Therefore, if Proposal Numbers 1 and 2 are adopted to include authority to regulate other markets, a conforming change should be made to § 983.57 to reference the utilization of reporting and disposition procedures to ensure substandard pistachios are not shipped to any market for which regulations exist.
It is therefore proposed that § 983.57, Substandard pistachios, be amended to authorize reporting and disposition procedures for substandard pistachios to ensure they are not shipped for human consumption in any market for which aflatoxin and/or quality requirements exist pursuant to § 983.50 and/or § 983.51.
Section 983.53 of the order pertains to aflatoxin testing of minimal quantities of pistachios and provides, in part, that lots of pistachios exceeding the maximum tolerance level for aflatoxin may be tested again after being reworked as specified in § 983.50. The reference to § 983.50 is incorrect. The correct section, which pertains to rework procedures, is § 983.52. This proposed amendment recommended by the Committee would correct the erroneous reference.
It is therefore proposed to amend § 983.53 by removing the reference to § 983.50 in paragraph (a)(2) and replacing it with the correct reference to § 983.52.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 850 producers and 29 handlers of pistachios in the production area encompassing California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000.
Based on Committee data, it is estimated that over 70 percent of the handlers ship less than $7,000,000 worth of pistachios and would thus be considered small business under the SBA definition. It is also estimated that over 80 percent of the growers in the production area produce less than $750,000 worth of pistachios and would thus be considered small businesses under the SBA definition.
The amendments proposed by the Committee would provide authority to establish aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements for shipments of pistachios to export markets, including authority to establish different regulations for different markets; provide authority to establish quality and inspection requirements for shipments of pistachios to export markets, including authority to establish different regulations for different markets; change a related section of the order concerning substandard pistachios to conform to the proposed addition of export authority; and correct an erroneous cross-reference to another section of the order.
These proposed amendments were unanimously recommended at a public meeting of the Committee held on July 10, 2010. None of the proposed amendments would have an immediate impact on handlers or producers if they are approved because they would not establish any requirements or
Under § 983.50 of the order and § 983.150 of the administrative rules and regulations, sampling, analysis, and inspection of pistachios for aflatoxin is required prior to shipment to domestic markets. Specific procedures and requirements for handlers to follow are prescribed. It is anticipated that any requirements recommended for export shipments would be similar to those in effect for domestic shipments. Thus, the associated costs would be similar.
The costs of complying with aflatoxin regulations can be broken into three basic elements: sampling of the product, the market value of the product samples that are used in testing, and the cost of the aflatoxin analysis performed by laboratories. These costs can vary among handlers depending on their particular operations. In recognition of this, the Committee provided estimates of the various cost elements for purposes of this discussion.
The cost of drawing samples from lots is estimated to range from $50.00 to $75.00 per lot. The variation in this cost can be attributed to factors such as the type of inspection program utilized by handlers. For purposes of this evaluation a cost factor of $70.00 per lot is utilized. The cost of the product used in sampling and testing varies depending upon the market price for pistachios. For purposes of this evaluation a value of $3.00 per pound as estimated by the Committee is utilized. At $3.00 per pound and a 44-pound sample, the cost of product used in sampling is $132.00 per lot. Laboratory costs for analyzing aflatoxin content are estimated to be $100.00 per test; with two tests per lot, the cost is $200.00 per lot.
Pistachio lots tested for aflatoxin can vary in size, but for purposes of this evaluation, a lot size of 50,000 pounds is used as that is a reasonable representative size for a typical handler operation. Applying the above cost estimates to a lot size of 50,000 pounds results in the following cost estimates on a per pound basis:
When compared to the market price for pistachios, the direct costs associated with an aflatoxin program are proportionately small. Utilizing a market price of $3.00 per pound as used in the above cost estimates, the costs of aflatoxin sampling and testing represent 0.27 percent of the market price. Even if the market price for pistachios was $1.00 per pound, the aflatoxin sampling and testing costs would be well below one percent of the price.
Most handlers who shipped pistachios to export markets in the past were signatories to a state marketing agreement that required aflatoxin sampling and analysis. That program was terminated in 2010. Since then, most handlers reportedly conduct aflatoxin testing and certification on export shipments to satisfy the requirements of the various markets. Therefore, the costs discussed above are already being borne by handlers.
While difficult to quantify, one of the primary benefits of an aflatoxin program is the reduced risk of a potential food incident. For example, in the late 1990's, high aflatoxin levels were detected in pistachios in European markets. This led to a 60 percent decrease in pistachio imports in Europe, and it took several years for the market to return to more normal levels. The U.S was not dominant in the European market at that time, but in recent years, Europe has become an increasingly significant market for U.S. pistachios. Regardless of the location of the market, this example demonstrates the devastating effect a food quality or food safety issue can have on the marketing of a product.
Another benefit of an aflatoxin testing program is the resulting reduction in the incidence of rejected shipments at their destination. Many countries test product prior to allowing its importation. Product that does not meet the importing country's standards can be rejected and returned to the shipper. It is estimated that the cost of handling or returning a rejected lot is between $12,000 and $15,000 per lot. Product that has been tested prior to shipment based on the requirements of its market destination is less likely to be rejected and would not incur the associated costs.
Avoiding a disruption in the marketing of pistachios in export markets is important in maintaining the viability of the industry. Shipments of open inshell pistachios increased dramatically in recent years; from 95,761,666 pounds in the 2004-05 shipping season to 192,436,136 pounds in the 2009-10 season, according to Committee data. Exports represented approximately 63 percent of total U.S. pistachio shipments during the 2009-10 season. According to statistics reported by the Committee, total acreage increased from 117,773 acres in 2004 to 215,336 acres in 2010, representing an 83 percent increase. Much of this acreage is non-bearing and will come into production in the near future. These statistics demonstrate that domestic production of pistachios will continue to increase in the future, and export markets must be maintained to accommodate the increased supplies.
Expanding order authority to include establishing aflatoxin requirements applicable to export shipments will provide an additional tool to aid in the marketing of pistachios covered under the order. In the event the authority is implemented, the potential costs associated with a mandatory aflatoxin program for exports are expected to be more than offset by the potential benefits discussed above.
An analysis of the potential costs of adding authority to the order to establish quality regulations is not possible because no quality regulations are currently in effect under the order, and none are being contemplated. Quality regulations were in effect for domestic shipments from 2004 through 2007, but were suspended because they were no longer meeting the industry's needs. However, the order still contains broad authority for domestic quality regulations and the industry may desire to reinstate them if circumstances warrant. As a result of the increasing importance of the export market as demonstrated above, the Committee recommended adding authority to the order for quality regulation for export shipments in the event circumstances in the future warrant their implementation.
If such authority is added to the order, a unanimous action of the Committee would be required to recommend the establishment of any export quality regulations. In addition, informal rulemaking would be required for implementation, and an analysis of the potential costs and benefits would be conducted during that process.
The remaining proposed amendments are administrative in nature and would have no economic impact on growers or handlers. One of the proposed amendments would add conforming language to another section of the order if other amendments are approved, and another proposed amendment would correct an incorrect section reference in the order.
Alternatives to these proposals include making no changes at this time. However, the Committee believes it would be beneficial to have the means necessary to apply regulations to the export markets if circumstances warrant.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0215, “Pistachios Grown in California”. No changes in those requirements as a result of this proceeding are anticipated. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
The Committee's meeting, at which these proposals were discussed, was widely publicized throughout the pistachio industry. All interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and encouraged to participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the meeting was public, and all entities, both large and small, were encouraged to express their views on these proposals.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
One comment was received in response to the proposal. The comment, submitted on behalf of a pistachio trade association, was supportive of the proposed amendments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the proposed amendments, based on the comment received.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
The findings and conclusions and general findings and determinations included in the proposed rule set forth in the June 13, 2011, issue of the
Annexed hereto and made a part hereof is the document entitled “Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico.” This document has been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of effectuating the foregoing findings and conclusions.
It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted in accordance with the procedure for the conduct of referenda (7 CFR 900.400-900.407) to determine whether the annexed order amending the order regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico is approved by growers, as defined under the terms of the order, who during the representative period were engaged in the production of pistachios in the production area.
The representative period for the conduct of such referendum is hereby determined to be September 1, 2010 through August 31, 2011.
The agents of the Secretary to conduct such referendum are designated to be Rose M. Aguayo and Andrea Ricci, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA;
Marketing agreements, Pistachios, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The findings hereinafter set forth are supplementary to the findings and determinations which were previously made in connection with the issuance of the marketing agreement and order; and all said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
1. The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
2. The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, regulate the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico in the same manner as, and are applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing agreement and order;
3. The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, are limited in application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
4. The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and as hereby proposed to be further amended, prescribe, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and
5. All handling of pistachios produced in the production area as defined in the marketing agreement and order is in the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
The provisions of the proposed marketing order amending the order contained in the proposed rule issued by the Administrator on June 5, 2011, and published in the
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 983 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Revise § 983.50 to read as follows:
The committee shall establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios to be shipped for domestic human consumption as will contribute to orderly marketing or be in the public interest. The committee may also establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such requirements for pistachios to be shipped for human consumption in export markets. No handler shall ship, for human consumption in domestic, or if applicable, export markets, pistachios that exceed an aflatoxin level established by the committee and approved by the Secretary. All shipments to markets for which requirements have been established must be covered by an aflatoxin inspection certificate. The committee may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish different sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements, and different aflatoxin level requirements, for different markets.
3. Revise § 983.51 to read as follows:
For any production year, the committee may establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such quality and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios shipped for human consumption in domestic or export markets as will contribute to orderly marketing or be in the public interest. In such production year, no handler shall ship pistachios for human consumption in domestic, or if applicable, export markets unless they meet the applicable requirements as evidenced by certification acceptable to the committee. The committee may, with the approval of the Secretary, establish different quality and inspection requirements for different markets.
4. Amend § 983.53 by removing the reference to “§ 983.50” and adding in its place “§ 983.52” in paragraph (a)(2).
5. Revise § 983.57 to read as follows:
The committee shall, with the approval of the Secretary, establish such reporting and disposition procedures as it deems necessary to ensure that pistachios which do not meet aflatoxin and quality requirements are not shipped for human consumption in those markets for which such requirements exist pursuant to § 983.50 and § 983.51.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Reopening of comment period.
On July 8, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a draft Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) pertaining to NRC regulation of military operational Radium-226 for a 60-day public comment period that ended on September 6, 2011. The NRC has decided to reopen the comment period for an additional 75 days.
The comment period for the publication July 8, 2011 at 76 FR 40282, has been reopened and now closes on November 29, 2011. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0146 in the subject line of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see “Submitting comments and Accessing Information:” in the
•
•
•
Robert L. Johnson, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-7282, e-mail:
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site,
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not include any information in their comments that they do not want publically disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using the following methods:
•
•
•
On October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55864), the NRC published a final rule that amended its regulations to include jurisdiction over discrete sources of radium-226, accelerator-produced radioactive materials, and discrete sources of naturally occurring radioactive material, as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was signed into law on August 8, 2005 (NARM Rule). In order to clarify those discrete sources of radium-226 under military control that are subject to NRC regulation, as interpreted in the statement of considerations to the NARM Rule, on July 8, 2011 (76 FR 40282), the NRC published for public comment the proposed draft RIS 2011-XX; NRC Regulation of Military Operational Radium-226. On August 29, 2011, the NRC received a request from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) for a meeting with the NRC staff and an extension of the comment period. In response to the request for DoD, the NRC has decided to reopen the comment period for an additional 75 days. The NRC staff will schedule the public meeting for a date that has yet to be determined. Notice of this public meeting will be provided through the NRC's Web site.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This document announces an open meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group for Low-Voltage Dry-Type Distribution Transformers (hereafter “LV Group”). The LV Group is a working group within the Appliance Standards Subcommittee of the Efficiency and Renewables Advisory Committee (ERAC). The purpose of the LV Group is to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for regulating the energy efficiency of distribution transformers, as authorized by the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) and 6317(a). A separate Working Group on Liquid-Immersed and Medium-Voltage Dry Type Distribution Transformers is being convened to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for regulating the energy efficiency of medium-voltage and liquid-immersed transformers, as authorized by the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) and 6317(a) [FR Doc. 2011-19263].
Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 9 a.m.-5 p.m.
Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 8E-089, Washington, DC 20585. Please arrive at least 30 minutes early for building entry requirements. Please view the Public Participation section for more information.
John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Building Technologies (EE-2J), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1692. E-mail:
A regulatory negotiation will enable DOE to engage in direct and sustained dialog with informed, interested, and affected parties when drafting the proposed regulation that is then presented to the public for comment. Gaining this early understanding of all parties' perspectives allows DOE to address key issues at an earlier stage of the process, thereby allowing more time for an iterative process to resolve issues. A rule drafted by negotiation with informed and affected parties is more likely to maximize benefits while minimizing unnecessary costs than one conceived or drafted without the opportunity for sustained dialog among interested and expert parties. DOE anticipates that there will be a need for fewer substantive changes to a proposed rule developed under a regulatory negotiation process prior to the publication of a final rule.
To the maximum extent possible, consistent with the legal obligations of the Department, DOE will use the consensus of the advisory committee or subcommittee as the basis for the rule the Department proposes for public notice and comment.
• Tim Ballo (Earthjustice).
• Scott Beck (Lakeview Metals).
• Eric Petersen (AK Steel).
• Gary Fernstrom (PG&E).
• Andrew DeLaski (ASAP).
• Robin Roy (NRDC).
• Steve Nadel (ACEEE).
• Eduardo Robles (Eaton).
• Robert Greeson (Federal Pacific).
• Vijay Tendulkar (ONYX Power).
• Chad Kennedy (Schneider).
• John Caskey (NEMA).
• Millure David (Metglas).
• John Cymbalsky (U.S. Department of Energy).
• Mark Stoering (Xcel Energy).
Anyone attending the meeting will be required to present government-issued identification. Foreign nationals will be required, per DOE security protocol, to complete a questionnaire, no later than, one week prior to the meeting, Thursday, September 22, 2011.
Participation in the meeting is not a prerequisite for submission of written comments. ERAC invites written comments from all interested parties. If you would like to file a written statement with the committee, you may do so either by submitting a hard or electronic copy before or after the meeting. Electronic copy of written statements should be e-mailed to
Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The Department of Transportation is proposing to amend its existing airline smoking rule to explicitly ban the use of electronic cigarettes on all aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate, intrastate and foreign air transportation. The Department is taking this action because of the increased promotion of electronic cigarettes and the potential health and passenger comfort concerns that they pose in an aircraft. The Department is also considering whether to extend the ban on smoking (including electronic cigarettes) to charter flights of air carriers (
Comments should be filed by November 14, 2011. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent possible.
You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2011-0044 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Laura E. Jennings, Trial Attorney, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax),
Throughout this proposed rule, we use the terms “air carrier” and “foreign air carrier” as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102, in which “air carrier” is a citizen of the United States undertaking to provide air transportation, and a “foreign air carrier” is a person, not a citizen of the United States, undertaking to provide foreign air transportation.
The current statutory ban on smoking in scheduled interstate, intrastate, and foreign air transportation derives from the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or “AIR-21” (Pub. L. 106-181), which was signed into law on April 5, 2000. It included section 708, “Prohibitions Against Smoking on Scheduled Flights,” and was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41706. Section 41706 states:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(d)
On June 9, 2000, the Department amended 14 CFR part 252, titled Smoking Aboard Aircraft, to implement section 41706.
Electronic cigarettes were introduced into the market in recent years. Because of the increasing promotion and availability of electronic cigarettes the issue has been raised as to whether the statutory ban on smoking in section 41706 and existing regulatory prohibition on the smoking of tobacco products in part 252 apply to electronic cigarettes. The Department views the statutory and regulatory ban on smoking to be sufficiently broad to include the use of electronic cigarettes. While we view the statutory ban on smoking in section 41706 to cover electronic cigarettes as the statutory authority for this NPRM, we are, nonetheless, not solely relying on section 41706, which prohibits smoking aboard aircraft, but also another statute, as was true when we amended Part 252 to implement section 41706. This statute, 49 U.S.C. 41702, mandates that an air carrier shall provide safe and adequate interstate air transportation. We invite all interested persons to comment.
This NPRM proposes to amend part 252 to define smoking as the smoking of tobacco products or use of electronic cigarettes that are designed to deliver nicotine or other substances to a user in the form of a vapor. The Department does not intend for the definition to include the use of a device such as a nebulizer that delivers a medically beneficial substance to a user in the form of a vapor. Typically electronic cigarettes, also called “e-cigarettes,” are designed to look like traditional cigarettes. E-cigarettes are sometimes also made to look like cigars and pipes, and even everyday products such as pens.
Studies show thousands of people use electronic cigarettes daily, and the products generate an estimated $100 million annually in sales. Some are marketed as being permissible in places where cigarette use is prohibited. Through Congressional correspondence, anecdotal evidence, and online sources, including blogs, the Department has been made aware that some airline passengers have used or have attempted to use electronic cigarettes on board commercial flights. This NPRM proposes an explicit ban on the use of electronic cigarettes that would apply to all forms of the products, including but not limited to: Electronic cigars, pipes, and devices designed to look like everyday products such as pens and USB memory sticks.
The Department views its current regulatory ban on smoking of tobacco products on passenger flights to be sufficiently broad to include the use of electronic cigarettes. The recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit,
The Department is proposing in this NPRM to explicitly ban the use of electronic cigarettes on aircraft as there has been some confusion over whether the Department's ban on smoking of tobacco products includes a ban on use of electronic cigarettes. We see no reason to treat electronic cigarettes any differently than traditional cigarettes. The purpose behind the statutory ban on smoking aboard aircraft and the regulatory ban in part 252 on smoking tobacco products was to improve air quality within the aircraft, reduce the risk of adverse health effects on passengers and crewmembers, and enhance aviation safety and passenger comfort. Electronic cigarettes are generally designed to look like and to be used in the same manner as conventional cigarettes. Although a vapor, rather than smoke, is produced, the products require an inhalation and exhalation similar to smoking cigarettes. We are unaware of sufficient studies on the health impact on third parties from these vapors to conclude that they would not negatively impact the air quality within the aircraft and/or increase the risk of adverse health effects on passengers and crewmembers.
Each e-cigarette consists of three parts: The replaceable cartridge, which most often contains liquid nicotine but may contain other chemicals, the atomizer or heating element, and the battery and electronics. See
Some electronic cigarette companies have claimed that their products are safe because they reportedly do not contain carcinogens or tar or produce second-hand smoke, as there is no combustion in their use. According to these arguments, while the vapor looks and feels, and may taste, like smoke produced by burning traditional tobacco products, its chemistry differs from the smoke produced from burning conventional tobacco products. The principal liquid ingredient is propylene glycol, which is widely used as a moistening food additive and an aid to vaporization. However, some research, conducted on non-asthmatic people, has shown that exposure to propylene glycol mist from artificial smoke generators may cause acute ocular and upper airway irritation, and in a few cases people reacted with cough and slight airway obstruction. See G Wieslander, D Norbäck, and T Lindgren, “Experimental exposure to propylene glycol mist in aviation emergency training: Acute ocular and respiratory effects,”
Researchers at the University of California, Riverside, published a study on December 7, 2010, in which they evaluated five electronic cigarette brands. See Anna Trtchounian & Prue Talbot, “Electronic nicotine delivery systems: Is there a need for regulation?”
Numerous public health experts also have voiced concerns over electronic cigarettes. Reacting to the University of California, Riverside, study, a research administrator from the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program stated, “More research on e-cigarettes is crucially needed to protect the health of e-cigarette users and even those who do not use e-cigarettes. Contrary to the claims of the manufacturers and marketers of e-cigarettes being `safe,' in fact nothing is known about the toxicity of the vapors generated by these e-cigarettes.” See ScienceDaily.com, “Electronic Cigarettes are Unsafe and Pose Health Risks, Study Finds,
We note that Amtrak has banned the use of electronic smoking devices on trains and in any area where smoking is prohibited, the Air Force Surgeon General issued a memorandum highlighting the safety concerns regarding electronic cigarettes and placed them in the same category as tobacco products, and the U.S. Navy has banned them below decks in submarines. Moreover, several states have taken steps to ban either the sale or use of electronic cigarettes, in the absence of federal regulation.
The purpose behind the statutory ban on smoking aboard aircraft and the regulatory ban in Part 252 on smoking tobacco products was to improve air quality within the aircraft, reduce the risk of adverse health effects on passengers and crewmembers, and enhance aviation safety and passenger comfort. The object of the proposed rule is to prevent introduction of a new potential source of contamination to the cabin environment that could potentially endanger the welfare of nonsmokers who are now protected from all such exposure. Consistent with this underlying purpose, we are proposing this NPRM. There is a lack of scientific data and knowledge with respect to the ingredients in electronic cigarettes. The quantity and toxicity of exhaled vapors have not been studied. Releasing a vapor that may contain harmful substances or respiratory irritants in a confined space, especially to those who are at a higher risk, is contrary to the purpose and intent of the statutory and regulatory ban on smoking aboard aircraft.
In light of the unknown health risks with the use of electronic cigarettes by individuals who “smoke” them or the people around them and the growing availability and use of electronic cigarettes, the Department is proposing this amendment to Part 252 to explicitly ban the use of electronic cigarettes aboard aircraft. The Department seeks comments on the following: (1) Whether the definition of “smoking” in the proposed rule text is too broad in that it may unintentionally include otherwise permissible medical devices that produce a vapor; (2) concerns over, and benefits of, the proposal to clarify the prohibition in Part 252 to explicitly cover electronic cigarettes; and (3) any other information or data that are relevant to the Department's decision.
The Department is also considering whether to extend the ban on smoking (including electronic cigarettes) to charter flights of air carriers and foreign air carriers between points in the U.S. and between the U.S. and any foreign point with aircraft that have a designed seating capacity of 19 or more passenger seats. Under the current part 252, air carriers operating single-entity charters may permit smoking throughout the aircraft (
We note that we are not addressing in this rulemaking any other safety-related issues that may exist with the use of electronic cigarettes aboard aircraft (
This action has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. We find that the benefits of the proposal exceed its costs.
In 2009, there were a total of 73 U.S. carriers and 101 foreign air carriers providing service covered by the present rule. In total, these carriers operated 782 million passenger departures. These passengers and carriers and their employees have all benefited from protection by the existing rule against the injurious effects of secondhand smoke. They have also benefited from inclusion of e-cigarettes in the smoking prohibition to the extent that exhaled vapors may be harmful (whether or not including components of nicotine). The proposed rule would offer incremental benefits in limiting potential pollution resulting from the mistaken supposition that e-cigarettes are not covered by the current no-smoking rules. As the market for these devices expands, the number of misinformed passengers and the difficulty of reducing confusion over the use of these devices would likely grow without this rulemaking.
Costs of enforcement should be negligible at this time. By making the prohibition explicit and public, the Department will relieve carriers of much of the burden of policing violations and explaining the rule to passengers who mistakenly believe that use of e-cigarettes is allowed. The present system for notifying passengers of the prohibition should need little modification, although notice that e-cigarettes are not exempt might be appropriate at certain times, either orally or otherwise. While a small fraction of passengers may suffer from nicotine withdrawal, they would still have access to alternative methods of nicotine replacement such as gum or patches that do not release contaminants into the environment.
Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DOT certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would impose no new duties or obligations on small entities.
This action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore will not have federalism implications.
This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because the provision on which we are seeking comment would not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking.
Air carriers, Aircraft, Consumer protection, Foreign air carriers, smoking.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 14 CFR part 252 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 252 continues to read as follows:
Pub. L. 101-164; 49 U.S.C. 40102, 40109, 40113, 41701, 41702, 41706, as amended by section 708 of Pub. L 106-181, 41711, and 46301.
2. Section 252.1 is revised to read as follows:
This part implements a ban on smoking on air carrier and foreign air carrier flights in scheduled intrastate, interstate and foreign air transportation. It also addresses smoking on charter flights. Nothing in this part shall be deemed to require air carriers or foreign air carriers to permit smoking aboard aircraft.
3. Section 252.3 is revised to read as follows:
As used in this part:
4. Section 252.4 is added to read as follows:
Air carriers shall prohibit smoking on all scheduled passenger flights.
5. Section 252.8 is revised to read as follows:
The restrictions on smoking described in §§ 252.4 through 252.7 shall apply to all locations within the aircraft.
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to remove from regulations and/or modify two types of progress reports: Transfer reports and triennial reports.
Comments are due by November 14, 2011.
Submit comments to the Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. You may view an electronic version of this rule at
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address,
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “Confidential Business Information” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the “For Additional Information” paragraph.
In this document, the Bureau proposes to remove from regulations and/or modify two types of progress reports: Transfer reports and triennial reports.
Section 524.41, entitled “Types of progress reports,” lists several types of progress reports prepared for non-Bureau entities, such as for parole hearings, pre-release, final (prepared 90 days before an inmate's release to a term of supervision), and for other reasons (such as upon court request or a clemency review). The current regulations also identify two types of progress reports that were primarily intended for internal Bureau purposes: Those prepared when inmates transfer to community confinement or another institution, and those prepared triennially if not more frequently done for any other reason.
Current Bureau practice and advances in technology have obviated the need to prepare a specific paper report when an inmate is transferred between Bureau facilities. When an inmate is transferred, all pertinent information regarding the progress of an inmate being transferred has already been updated in the Bureau's computer system, which staff may access at all Bureau facilities and in community confinement. It is, therefore, unnecessary for a separate and specific progress report to be prepared by staff at the transferring Bureau facility for staff at the receiving Bureau facility, when receiving facility staff can easily access this information themselves.
However, when an inmate is transferring outside the Bureau, to a state facility, non-Bureau community confinement, or other non-Bureau facility, staff at that facility may not have access to the Bureau's computer system. Therefore, it would be necessary for Bureau staff to prepare a transfer report detailing an inmate's progress in the Bureau facility for the benefit of staff at the non-Bureau facility.
Before the development of this internal Bureau computer information network, triennial reports were a necessary tool used to provide staff with specific inmate information. As explained above, however, current Bureau practice and advances in technology have obviated the need to prepare a specific progress report every 36 months, because all information regarding an inmate's progress is continually updated in the Bureau's computer system, which staff may access at all Bureau facilities.
This rule falls within a category of actions that the Office of Management
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
Prisoners.
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we propose to amend 28 CFR part 524 as set forth below.
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 524 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521-3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4046, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 21 U.S.C. 848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
2. In § 524.41, remove paragraphs (d) and (e), redesignate paragraph (f) as paragraph (e), and add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Proposed rule: Cancellation of hearing.
Notice is hereby given that the Commission is cancelling the public hearing on the above proposed modifications of its recordkeeping and reporting provisions under title VII, the ADA, and GINA. (76 FR 31892, June 2, 2011). No requests to present oral testimony at a hearing concerning the proposed rule were received from the public. Further, the Commission received only one public comment in response to the June 2 notice, and the commenter expressed support for the proposed changes. Therefore, it will not be necessary to hold the hearing.
Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, (202) 663-4668, or Erin N. Norris, Senior Attorney, (202) 663-4876, Office of Legal Counsel, 131 M Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507.
For the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia for the purpose of amending the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Charleston, Huntington, Parkersburg, Weirton, and Wheeling 8-hour ozone maintenance areas. This revision amends the maintenance plans' 2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) by reallocating a portion of the plans' safety margins which results in an increase in the MVEBs. In the Final Rules section of this
Comments must be received in writing by October 17, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0511 by one of the following methods:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Martin Kotsch, (215) 814-3335, or by e-mail at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Proposed rule.
NASA proposes to revise the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to update the Award Fee for Service Contracts clause (NFS 1852.216-76) to clarify that the amount of award fee held in reserve, if any, shall not exceed $100,000 for the contract. The purpose of this reserve is to protect the Government's interests relative to an orderly and timely closeout of the contract. In addition, the Award Fee for End Item Contracts clause (NFS 1852.216-77) is being updated to add language similar to that contained in the Award Fee for Service Contracts clause to allow the contracting officer to withhold fee payments, at a not to exceed amount of $100,000 for the contract, to protect the Government's interests relative to an orderly and timely closeout of the contract.
Interested parties should submit comments to NASA at the address below on or before November 14, 2011 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.
Interested parties may submit comments to include any comments relative to the cost associated with complying with this requirement, identified by RIN number 2700-AD70, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Bill Roets, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division (Suite 5G86); (202) 358-4483; e-mail:
In accordance with FAR 16.406(e), the NFS clause 1852.216-76 was created and required for all solicitations and contracts when an award fee contract was contemplated and the contract deliverable was the performance of a service. This clause delineates the award fee evaluation and payment process that will be followed in the contract. NASA is updating this clause to clarify that the amount of withheld award fee shall not exceed $100,000 for the contract revising paragraph (d) of 1852.216-76. As currently written, the clause specifies a not to exceed of 15 percent of the contract's potential award fee, and on large multi-million dollar procurements, this reserve could total millions of dollars which would be excessive for the intended purpose of this reserve. By capping this reserve at $100,000, NASA will set the appropriate maximum dollar amount for this potential reserve and will align this clause with similar language in FAR clauses 52.216-8, Fixed-Fee, and 52.216-10, Incentive Fee.
Similar language relative to withholding a reserve amount of fee, not to exceed $100,000, to protect the Government's interests relative to an orderly and timely closeout of the contract, is also being added to the
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
NASA certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) is not applicable because the NFS changes do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR part 1852 is proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 1852 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 2455(a), 2473(c)(1).
2. Section 1852.216-76 is revised to read as follows:
As prescribed in 1816.406-70(a), insert the following clause:
(a) The contractor can earn award fee from a minimum of zero dollars to the maximum stated in NASA FAR Supplement clause 1852.216-85, “Estimated Cost and Award Fee” in this contract.
(b) Beginning 6* months after the effective date of this contract, the Government shall evaluate the Contractor's performance every 6* months to determine the amount of award fee earned by the contractor during the period. The Contractor may submit a self-evaluation of performance for each evaluation period under consideration. These self-evaluations will be considered by the Government in its evaluation. The Government's Fee Determination Official (FDO) will determine the award fee amounts based on the Contractor's performance in accordance with
(c) The Government will advise the Contractor in writing of the evaluation results. The
(d) The Contracting Officer may direct the withholding of earned award fee payments until a reserve is set aside in an amount that the Contracting Officer considers necessary to protect the Government's interest relative to an orderly and timely closeout of the contract. This reserve shall not exceed 15 percent of the contract's total potential award fee or $100,000, whichever is less.
(e) The amount of award fee which can be awarded in each evaluation period is limited to the amounts set forth at
(f)(1) Provisional award fee payments
(2) Provisional award fee payments will be superseded by the final award fee evaluation for that period. If provisional payments exceed the final evaluation score, the Contractor will either credit the next payment voucher for the amount of such overpayment or refund the difference to the Government, as directed by the Contracting Officer.
(3) If the Contracting Officer determines that the Contractor will not achieve a level of performance commensurate with the provisional rate, payment of provisional award fee will be discontinued or reduced in such amounts as the Contracting Officer deems appropriate. The Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor in writing if it is determined that such discontinuance or reduction is appropriate.
(4) Provisional award fee payments
(g) Award fee determinations are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.
* [A period of time greater or lesser than 6 months may be substituted in accordance with 1816.405-272(a).]
3. Section 1852.216-77 is revised to read as follows:
As prescribed in 1816.406-70(b), insert the following clause:
(a) The contractor can earn award fee, or base fee, if any, from a minimum of zero dollars to the maximum stated in NASA FAR Supplement clause 1852.216-85, “Estimated Cost and Award Fee” in this contract. All award fee evaluations, with the exception of the last evaluation, will be interim evaluations. At the last evaluation, which is final, the Contractor's performance for the entire contract will be evaluated to determine total earned award fee. No award fee or base fee will be paid to the Contractor if the final award fee evaluation is “poor/unsatisfactory.”
(b) Beginning 6* months after the effective date of this contract, the Government will evaluate the Contractor's interim performance every 6* months to monitor Contractor performance prior to contract completion and to provide feedback to the Contractor. The evaluation will be performed in accordance with
(c)(1) Base fee, if applicable, will be paid in
(2) Interim award fee payments will be made to the Contractor based on each interim evaluation. The amount of the interim award fee payment is limited to the lesser of the interim evaluation score or 80 percent of the fee allocated to that period
(3) Provisional award fee payments will
(4) All interim (and provisional, if applicable) fee payments will be superseded by the fee determination made in the final award fee evaluation. The Government will then pay the Contractor, or the Contractor will refund to the Government the difference between the final award fee determination and the cumulative interim (and provisional, if applicable) fee payments. If the final award fee evaluation is “poor/unsatisfactory,” any base fee paid will be refunded to the Government.
(5) Payment of base fee, if applicable, will be made based on submission of an invoice by the Contractor. Payment of award fee will be made by the
(d) The Contracting Officer may direct the withholding of interim award fee payments until a reserve is set aside in an amount that the Contracting Officer considers necessary to protect the Government's interest relative to an orderly and timely closeout of the contract. This reserve shall not exceed 15 percent of the contracts total potential award fee or $100,000, whichever is less.
(e) Award fee determinations are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.
* [A period of time greater or lesser than 6 months may be substituted in accordance with 1816.405-272(a).]
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 30, 2011, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) results of redetermination as applied to respondent Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. (“Rongxin”) pursuant to the CIT's remand order in
Alexander Montoro or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration—International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-0238 or (202) 482-0196.
On July 13, 2009, the Department published its
Also in the
Additionally, in the
On first remand, the Department adopted a wage calculation methodology with respect to Rongxin that averaged wages across countries that are both economically comparable and significant producers of merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise.
On second remand, the Department revised its wage rate methodology to rely upon labor cost data from a single surrogate country.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to Rongxin, the revised dumping margin is as follows:
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from Rongxin on the revised assessment rate calculated by the Department.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 1, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, and Italy. See
Sandra Stewart at (202) 482-0768, AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
On May 15, 1989, the Department published in the
On August 1, 2011, the Department initiated the sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, and Italy pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See
The products covered by the orders are ball bearings and parts thereof. These products include all antifriction bearings that employ balls as the rolling element. Imports of these products are classified under the following categories: antifriction balls, ball bearings with integral shafts, ball bearings (including radial ball bearings) and parts thereof, and housed or mounted ball bearing units and parts thereof.
Imports of these products are classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 6909.19.50.10, 8414.90.41.75, 8431.20.00, 8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10, 8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80, 8482.99.65.95, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 8708.93.30, 8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06, 8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00, 8708.99.49.60, 8708.99.58, 8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80, 8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 8803.90.30, 8803.90.90, 8708.30.50.90, 8708.40.75.70, 8708.40.75.80, 8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00, 8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00, 8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90, 8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 8708.99.68, and 8708.99.81.80.
Although the HTSUS item numbers above are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written descriptions of the scope of the orders remain dispositive.
The size or precision grade of a bearing does not influence whether the bearing is covered by one of the orders. The orders cover all the subject bearings and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields,
For a list of scope determinations which pertain to the orders, see the “Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill” regarding scope determinations for the 2009/2010 administrative reviews dated April 14, 2011, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main Commerce building, room 7046, in the General Issues record (A-100-001).
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3), if no domestic interested party files a notice of intent to participate, the Department shall issue a final determination revoking the order within 90 days of the initiation of the review. Because no domestic interested party filed a timely notice of intent to participate in the sunset reviews, the Department finds that no domestic interested party is participating in the sunset reviews. Therefore, we are revoking the antidumping duty orders on ball bearings and parts thereof from France, Germany, and Italy. The effective date of revocation is September 15, 2011, the fifth anniversary of the continuation of the antidumping duty orders. See
Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the Department intends to issue instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to terminate the suspension of liquidation of entries of the merchandise subject to the orders which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after September 15, 2011. Entries of subject merchandise prior to September, 15, 2011, will continue to be subject to the suspension of liquidation and requirements for deposits of estimated antidumping duties. The Department will conduct administrative reviews of the orders with respect to subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.
These final results of the five-year (sunset) reviews and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(c) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On June 28, 2011, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Taiwan. The review covers eight firms. Based on a withdrawal of the requests for review of certain companies from United States Steel Corporation (Petitioner), we are now rescinding this administrative review with respect to six of those firms.
Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1131 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.
On June 28, 2011, the Department published in the
On August 8, 2011, the Petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review for the following six companies: (1) E United Group; (2) Yieh Corp.; (3) Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd.; (4) Far East Machinery Co. Ltd.; (5) Kao Hsing Chang Iron & Steel Corp. (also known as Kao Hsiung Chang Iron & Steel Corp.); and (6) Tension Steel Industries Co. Ltd.
The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), states that if a party that requested an administrative review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, the Secretary will rescind the review. The Petitioner withdrew its review request with respect to six companies within the 90-day deadline, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations, we are partially rescinding this review with respect to the following six companies: (1) E United Group; (2) Yieh Corp.; (3) Yieh Hsing Enterprise Co., Ltd.; (4) Far East Machinery Co. Ltd.; (5) Kao Hsing Chang Iron & Steel Corp. (also known as Kao Hsiung Chang Iron & Steel Corp.); and (6) Tension Steel Industries Co. Ltd. This review will continue with respect to Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd. and Chung Hung Steel Corp.
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO
This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
September 15, 2011.
On May 27, 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).
Laurel LaCivita, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
On April 1, 2011, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the PRC for the period April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011.
On June 20, 2011, the Department placed on the record information obtained in response to the Department's query to CBP concerning imports into the United States of subject merchandise during the POR.
On July 14, 2011, the Department notified interested parties of its intent to rescind this administrative review and gave parties until July 21, 2010, to provide comments. We did not receive any comments.
The product covered by this antidumping duty order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-based scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this order includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.
The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes; magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into rasping, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy”
The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Based upon the certifications and the evidence on the record, the Department finds TMI's claim of no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR to be substantiated. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, the Department is rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department intends to instruct CBP fifteen days after the publication of this notice to liquidate such entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2).
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public hearing; request for public comments.
This notice provides information on a public hearing to be held by NOAA and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) in Chicago, Illinois. The hearing involves the scope and content of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. The DEIS assesses the environmental impacts associated with approval of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). This notice also announces the opening of the public comment period on the DEIS.
The agency must receive comments on or before October 31, 2011.
•
•
•
•
Diana Olinger, Coastal Program Specialist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, OCRM/CPD, N/ORM3, Station 11204, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephone (301) 563-1149, facsimile (301) 713-4367, e-mail
Illinois has submitted a coastal management program to NOAA for approval under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451,
Upon finding that a state program has satisfied the requirements of the CZMA, NOAA is required to prepare a DEIS. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations to implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, apply to the preparation of the DEIS. Specifically, section 1506.6 requires agencies to provide public notice of NEPA-related hearings and the availability of environmental documents. This notice is part of NOAA's effort to comply with those regulations.
Copies of the DEIS are available by any one of the following methods:
• Contact Diana Olinger, NOAA Coastal Program Specialist, at the address indicated above;
• OCRM's Web site:
• Illinois Department of Natural Resource's Web site:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Council to convene a public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a meeting of the Ad Hoc Reef Fish Limited Access Privilege Program (LAPP) Advisory Panel.
The meeting will be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday, October 6, 2011.
The meeting will be held at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607.
Dr. Assane Diagne, Economist; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council;
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss management issues and potential pilot programs for the charter for-hire sector in the Gulf of Mexico. Issues to be discussed include the design, implementation, monitoring, review, and, evaluation of charter for-hire pilot programs.
Copies of the agenda and other related materials can be obtained by calling (813) 348-1630 or can be downloaded from the Council's ftp site,
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Ad Hoc Reef Fish Limited Access Privilege Program Advisory Panel for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Ad Hoc Reef Fish Limited Access Privilege Program Advisory Panel will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira at the Council (see
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Sea Grant Advisory Board (Board). Board members will discuss and provide advice on the National Sea Grant College Program in the areas of program evaluation, strategic planning, education and extension, science and technology programs, and other matters as described in the agenda found on the National Sea Grant College Program Web site at
The announced meeting is scheduled 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m. E.S.T. Wednesday, September 28 and 8 a.m.-4 p.m. E.S.T. Thursday, September 29, 2011.
The meeting will be held at University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography, Narragansett Bay Campus, 215 South Ferry Road, Ocean Technology Center, Narragansett, RI 02882.
Ms. Elizabeth Ban, Designated Federal Officer, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 11843, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, (301) 734-1082.
The Board, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice.
The agenda for this meeting can be found at
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the NOAA Science Advisory Board. The members will discuss and provide advice on issues outlined in the section on Matters to be Considered.
The meeting is scheduled for: Friday, September 30, from 3:15-5:15 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Conference call. Public access is available at: NOAA, SSMC 3, Room 11836, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Md.
Status: The meeting will be open to public participation with a 5-minute public comment period from 5:05-5:10 p.m. The SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of one minute. Written comments should be received in the SAB Executive Director's Office by September 26, 2011 to provide sufficient time for SAB review. Written comments received by the SAB Executive Director after September 26, 2011, will be distributed to the SAB, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) was established by a Decision Memorandum dated September 25, 1997, and is the only Federal Advisory Committee with responsibility to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on strategies for research, education, and application of science to operations and information services. SAB activities and advice provide necessary input to ensure that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) science programs are of the highest quality and provide optimal support to resource management.
Matters To Be Considered: The meeting will include the following topics: (1) Final Report from the Climate and Environmental Information Services Working Groups' Climate Partnership Task Force (2) Review of new members and renewal of member terms for the Environmental Information Services Working Group (3) Terms of Reference and Proposed Members for a Satellite Task Force (4) NOAA Request for SAB Review of the NOAA Research Enterprise and (5) NOAA Request for the Ecosystem Sciences and Management Working Group to vet reviewers for the National Marine Fisheries Science Centers. For the latest agenda, please visit the SAB Web site at
Dr. Cynthia Decker, Executive Director, Science Advisory Board, NOAA, Rm. 11230, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. (
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or “Commission”) is announcing a teleconference of the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) on phthalates and phthalate substitutes. The Commission appointed this CHAP to study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children's toys and child care articles, pursuant to section 108 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) (Pub. L. 110-314). The CHAP will discuss its progress toward completing its analysis of potential risks from phthalates and phthalate substitutes.
The teleconference will take place from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. E.D.T. (4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. British Summer Time or 15:30 to 17:00 G.M.T.) on Tuesday, September 20, 2011. Interested members of the public may listen to the CHAP's discussion. Members of the public will not have the opportunity to ask questions, comment, or otherwise participate in the teleconference. Interested parties should contact the CPSC project manager, Michael Babich, by e-mail (
To request access to the teleconference, contact the project manager by e-mail at
Section 108 of the CPSIA permanently prohibits the sale of any “children's toy or child care article” containing more than 0.1 percent of each of three specified phthalates: Di- (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). Section 108 of the CPSIA also prohibits, on an interim basis, the sale of any “children's toy that can be placed in a child's mouth” or “child care article” containing more than 0.1 percent of each of three additional phthalates: diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-
Moreover, section 108 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to convene a CHAP “to study the effects on children's health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children's toys and child care articles.” The CPSIA requires the CHAP to complete an examination of the full range of phthalates that are used in products for children and:
• Examine all of the potential health effects (including endocrine disrupting effects) of the full range of phthalates;
• Consider the potential health effects of each of these phthalates, both in isolation and in combination with other phthalates;
• Examine the likely levels of children's, pregnant women's, and others' exposure to phthalates, based on a reasonable estimation of normal and foreseeable use and abuse of such products;
• Consider the cumulative effect of total exposure to phthalates, both from children's products and from other sources, such as personal care products;
• Review all relevant data, including the most recent, best available, peer-reviewed, scientific studies of these phthalates and phthalate alternatives that employ objective data collection practices or employ other objective methods;
• Consider the health effects of phthalates, not only from ingestion, but also as a result of dermal, hand-to-mouth, or other exposure;
• Consider the level at which there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals and their offspring, reviewing the best available science, and using sufficient safety factors to account for uncertainties regarding exposure and susceptibility of children, pregnant women, and other potentially susceptible individuals; and
• Consider possible similar health effects of phthalate alternatives used in children's toys and child care articles.
The CPSIA contemplates completion of the CHAP's examination within 18 months of the panel's appointment. The CHAP must review prior work on phthalates by the Commission, but it is not to be considered determinative
The CHAP must make recommendations to the Commission about which phthalates, or combinations of phthalates (in addition to those identified in section 108 of the CPSIA), or phthalate alternatives should be prohibited from use in children's toys or child care articles or otherwise restricted. The Commission selected the CHAP members from scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences.
The CHAP met previously in April, July, and December 2010, and in March and July 2011, at the CPSC's offices in Bethesda, MD, and by teleconference in November 2010. The CHAP heard testimony from interested parties at the July 2010 meeting. The September 2011 conference call will include discussion of the CHAP's progress in its analysis of potential risks from phthalates and phthalate substitutes. There will not be any opportunity for public comment during the conference call.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 9 a.m.-12 p.m.
Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Commission Meeting—Open to the Public.
A live Webcast of the meeting can be viewed at
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011; 2-3 p.m.
Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
Closed to the public.
The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of compliance matters.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.
Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the “Corporation”), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirement on respondents can be properly assessed. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call (202) 565-2799 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday.
Currently, the Corporation is soliciting comments concerning AmeriCorps Application Instructions: State Commissions; State and National Competitive; Professional Corps; Indian Tribes; States and Territories without Commissions; and State and National Planning. Applicants will respond to the questions included in this ICR in order to apply for funding through these grant competitions.
Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service; Attention: Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director for Policy, Room 9515; 1201 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20525.
(2) By hand delivery or by courier to the Corporation's mailroom at Room 8100 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
(3) By fax to: (202) 606-3476, Attention: Amy Borgstrom, Associate Director for Policy.
(4) Electronically through the Corporation's e-mail address system:
Amy Borgstrom, (202) 606-6930, or by e-mail at
The Corporation is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (
These application instructions will be used by applicants for funding through AmeriCorps State and National grant competitions.
The Corporation seeks to renew and revise the current AmeriCorps State and National Application Instructions. The Application Instructions are being revised for increased clarity and to align with provisions of the Serve America Act. The Application Instructions will be used in the same manner as the existing Application Instructions. The Corporation also seeks to continue using the current Application Instructions until the revised Application Instructions are approved by OMB. The current ICRs are due to expire on May 31, 2012.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of availability.
Inventory to be made publicly available by October 17, 2011.
Send written comments and suggestions concerning this inventory to: Jeffrey Grover, Senior Procurement Analyst, OUSD (AT&L), DPAP/CPIC, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060, or e-mail
Jeffrey Grover, telephone 703-697-9352.
In accordance with section 2330a of title 10 United States Code, as amended by section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the Office of the Deputy Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Contract Policy and International Contracting (DPAP/CPIC) will make available to the public the annual inventory of contracts for services. The inventory will be posted to the Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Web site at
Department of the Air Force, U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board
Meeting Notice.
Under the provisions of the
The purpose of this Air Force Scientific Advisory Board quarterly meeting is to introduce the FY12 SAB study topics tasked by the Secretary of the Air Force and receive presentations that address relevant subjects to the SAB mission to include introduction of the new Board members for FY12, status of FY11 studies and the FY12 Board schedule; the Air Force's high dependence on space for navigation, timing, communications, weather, and intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance; increased space asset vulnerability; latest updates on the ongoing Aircraft Oxygen Generation Study by the Board; Air Force Global Strike Command overview highlighting high priority capability gaps and technology solution partnerships; Air Force Research Laboratory overview focusing on the Air Force Science and Technology plan emphasizing next generation energy, autonomy, sustainment, cyber, and ISR capabilities; improving the value of intelligence data collection and maximizing timely insight and safe and secure cyber ops; acquisition challenges amid new era of defense policy and lessons learned from challenged acquisition programs; and balancing today's needs with tomorrow's challenges to prepare for full-spectrum operations.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.155, The Administrative Assistant of the Air Force, in consultation with the Air Force General Counsel, has agreed that the public interest requires some sessions of the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting be closed to the public because they will discuss information and matters covered by sections 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).
Any member of the public wishing to provide input to the United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address detailed below at any time. Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated
The United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Executive Director and Designated Federal Officer, Lt. Col. Matthew E. Zuber, 301-981-7135, United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, 1602 California Ave., Ste. #251, Andrews AFB, MD 20762,
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 17, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 or e-mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
ED will use this Generic Application package for discretionary grant programs that: (1) Use the standard ED or Federal-wide grant application forms that have been cleared separately through OMB and (2) use selection criteria from the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR); statutory selection criteria or a combination of EDGAR and statutory selection criteria authorized under EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.200. The use of the standard ED grant application forms and the use of EDGAR and/or statutory selection criteria promote the standardization and streamlining of ED discretionary grant application packages.
Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
Comment request.
The Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management, invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 17, 2011.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Education Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395-5806 or e-mailed to
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
Copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from the
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice and Request for OMB Review and Comment.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the
Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before October 17, 2011. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4650.
Written comments should be sent to the
Carol Hellmann,
The information collection instrument may be viewed at
This information collection request contains: (1)
10 CFR 600.112.
Department of Energy; Office of Science.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee (BERAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, October 6, 2011 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Friday, October 7, 2011 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Dr. David Thomassen, Designated Federal Officer, BERAC, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, SC-23/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. Phone 301-903-9817; fax (301) 903-5051 or email:
• Report from the Office of Biological and Environmental Research
• News from the Biological Systems Science and Climate and Environmental Sciences Divisions
• Discussions on the Biological Systems Science Division Committee of Visitors
• Workshop Reports
• New Business
• Public Comment
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h:
i.
j.
All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
Southern California Edison Company states in its temporary variance request that as the lake is drawn down, daily inspections will be performed to determine the impact on fish species as well as conducting fish rescues if stranding is found. Once lake levels have stabilized, a qualified biologist will survey the area four times as week to collect and record any fish mortality. Any fish mortality that occurred during the dewatering of the lake will be replaced.
l. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
You may also register online at
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “PROTEST,” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Santana Energy Services' application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 28, 2011.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of NEPM II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is September 28, 2011.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the
Take notice that on August 26, 2011, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (Dominion), 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, filed in Docket No. CP11-540-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Dominion seeks authorization to construct, install, own, and operate certain pipeline facilities in Marshall County, West Virginia. Dominion proposes to perform these activities under its blanket certificate originally issued in Docket No. CP82-537-000 [21 FERC ¶ 62,172 (1982)], all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing may be viewed on the Web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Brad Knisley, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst, Dominion Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or by calling (804) 771-4122 (telephone) or (804) 771-4804 (fax),
Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is announcing the availability of the draft test guidelines for Series 810—Product Performance Test Guidelines for Public Health Uses of Antimicrobial Agents, concerning specifically air, textiles, and water.
Comments must be received on or before December 14, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0681, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under TSCA, FFDCA, or FIFRA, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
1.
2.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at the estimate.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggested alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA is announcing the availability of the draft test guidelines for Series 810—Product Performance Test Guidelines for Public Health Uses of Antimicrobial Agents:
1. Disinfectants and Sanitizers for Use on Fabrics and Textiles—Efficacy Data Recommendations (OCSPP Guideline 810.2400).
2. Air Sanitizers—Efficacy Data Recommendations (OCSPP Guideline 810.2500).
3. Disinfectants for Use in Water—Efficacy Data Recommendations (OCSPP Guideline 810.2600).
These draft test guidelines address efficacy testing for antimicrobial agents intended to be used on hard, inanimate, environmental surfaces; in the air; and in water, and which bear label claims as disinfectants and/or sanitizers. Data from these studies are used to support the labeling claims for public health related antimicrobial agents.
As a guidance document, the test guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any outside parties. At places in this guidance, the Agency uses the word “should.” In this guidance, use of “should” with regard to an action means that the action is recommended rather than mandatory. The procedures contained in the test guidelines are recommended for generating the data that are the subject of the test guideline, but EPA recognizes that departures may be appropriate in specific situations. EPA will consider alternatives to the recommendations described in the test guidelines on a case-by-case basis, after assessing whether the alternative will provide the data necessary to inform the regulatory decision that must be made.
The product performance guidelines for antimicrobial agents were last updated in 1982 under the “Pesticide Assessment Guidelines—Subdivision G, Product Performance.” Since then, the Agency has presented several issues at two separate meetings of the FIFRA SAP related to the conduct of studies for antimicrobial agents (the first meeting September 9-10, 1997, announced in the
On October 8, 2008, EPA published in the
This notice of availability does not involve a proposed regulatory action that would require the Agency to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
These test guidelines represent an Agency effort to harmonize the test guidelines within OCSPP, as well as to harmonize the OCSPP test guidelines with those of OECD. The process for developing and amending these test guidelines, which began in 1991, includes public participation and the extensive involvement of the scientific community, including peer review by SAP and the SAB and other expert scientific organizations.
In the future, these test guidelines could be incorporated into regulatory actions taken by EPA under TSCA,
Environmental protection, Antimicrobial agents, Chemicals, Harmonized test guidelines, Health and safety.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Public Comment Period and Listening Session; Extension.
EPA announced a 60-day public comment period and a listening session on August 31, 2011 (76 FR 54227) for the external review draft human health assessment titled, “Toxicological Review of n-Butanol: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” (EPA/635/R-11/081A). EPA is extending the public comment period one week because of a one-week delay in the release of the Toxicological Review to the public. The draft assessment was prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD). EPA is releasing this draft assessment solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. This draft assessment has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination. After public review and comment, an EPA contractor will convene an expert panel for independent external peer review of this draft assessment. The public comment period and external peer review meeting are separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested parties to comment on the assessment. The external peer review meeting will be scheduled at a later date and announced in the
The listening session will be held on October 26, 2011, during the public comment period for this draft assessment. The purpose of the listening session is to allow all interested parties to present scientific and technical comments on draft IRIS health assessments to EPA and other interested parties attending the listening session.
The public comment period will be extended to end November 7, 2011. Comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by November 7, 2011.
The listening session on the draft assessment for n-Butanol will be held on October 26, 2011, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time or when the last presentation has been completed. To attend the listening session, interested parties should register no later than October 19, 2011, following the instructions in the August 31
The draft “Toxicological Review of n-Butanol: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)” is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at
Comments may be submitted electronically via
For information on the draft assessment, please contact Ambuja Bale, National Center for Environmental Assessment [Mail Code: (8601-P)], U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces receipt of applications to register new uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients, pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. EPA is publishing this Notice of such applications, pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA.
Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2011.
Submit your comments, identified by the docket identification (ID) number specified within the table below, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
A contact person is listed at the end of each registration application summary and may be contacted by telephone or e-mail. The mailing address for each contact person listed is: Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001 or Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of FIFRA, and is publishing this Notice of such applications pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.
1.
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8.
9.
10
11.
12.
13.
14.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.
The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.
Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.
Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (e)(2) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(2)), notice is hereby given that at its open meeting held at 9:57 a.m. on Tuesday, September 13, 2011, the Corporation's Board of Directors determined, on motion of Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), seconded by Director John G. Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required the addition to the agenda for consideration at the meeting, on less than seven days' notice to the public, of the following matters:
The Board further determined, by the same majority vote, that no notice earlier than September 7, 2011, of the change in the subject matter of the meeting was practicable.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:39 a.m. on Tuesday, September 13, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Thomas J. Curry (Appointive), seconded by Director John G. Walsh (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and concurred in by Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10)).
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Notice is Hereby Given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Metropolitan Savings Bank, (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Metropolitan Savings Bank on February 2, 2007. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships,
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this timeframe.
Federal Election Commission.
Tuesday, September 13, and Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).
This meeting is closed to the public.
The September 13, 2011 meeting was canceled.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Under authority delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Board is requesting comment on four surveys related to its obligations under section 920(a) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA). Two surveys request information about the prevalence of the use of general-use prepaid cards in federal, state, and local government-administered payment programs and the interchange and cardholder fees charged with respect to this use. The Board is proposing to conduct these surveys to collect information necessary to meet its obligation under EFTA section 920(a)(7)(D) to submit an annual report to the Congress on such programs and fees. One of these surveys will require information from issuers of government-administered, general-use prepaid cards, in accordance with the Board's information collection authority in section 920(a)(3)(B) of the EFTA. The other survey, which is voluntary, will be directed to state governments that administer general-use prepaid cards.
The Board is also requesting comment on two mandatory surveys, one for debit card issuers and one for payment card networks, that will collect information on costs, debit card usage, and interchange fees. These surveys will enable the Board to meet its obligation under EFTA section 920(a)(3) to disclose aggregate or summary information concerning the costs incurred and interchange fees charged or received by issuers or payment card networks in connection with the authorization, clearance or settlement of electronic debit transactions.
Comments must be submitted on or before November 14, 2011.
You may submit comments, identified by FR 3063a or b (government-administered, general-use prepaid cards), FR 3064a (debit card issuers), or FR 3064b (payment card networks), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Additionally, commenters should send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer, Shagufta Ahmed, by mail to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to 202-395-6974.
All public comments are available on the Board's Web site at
Jennifer Williams, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202-452-2446), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, for FR 3063a or b (government-administered, general-use prepaid cards).
Edith Collis, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202-452-3638), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, for FR 3064a (debit card issuers).
Linda Healey, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202-452-5274), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed surveys, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Board's public Web site at:
Cynthia Ayouch, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202-263-4869), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
On June 15, 1984, the OMB delegated to the Board its approval authority under the PRA, pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR Part 1320 Appendix A.1. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the PRA submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instruments are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The following information collections, which are being handled under OMB delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. After the comment deadline, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under this delegated authority. The Board requests comment on all aspects of the proposed surveys, as discussed further below, including the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Board's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Board's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
1.
The obligation of issuers to respond to the issuer survey (FR 3063a) is mandatory. Some of the data collected by FR 3063a may be kept confidential under exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Information collected under FR 3063a can be kept confidential under exemption (b)(4) if the release of data would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the issuer.
The obligation of state governments to respond to the government survey (FR 3063b) is voluntary. The Board anticipates that all of the information collected by FR 3063b would be publicly available information and would not be given confidential treatment.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. What information collected by the issuer survey (FR 3063a) would consist of trade secrets or commercial or financial information;
b. Whether information collected by the government survey (FR 3063b) is publicly available information; and
c. Whether there are issuers of government-administered, general-use prepaid cards that are not depository institutions, and, if so, should the depository institution holding the insured deposits underlying the cards be required to report on behalf of those issuers.
On March 24, 2011, the Board distributed two surveys to industry participants (a depository institution survey and a state government survey) designed to assist the Board in meeting the reporting requirements in section 920(a) related to the prevalence of the use of general-use prepaid cards in federal, state, or local government-administered payment programs and
In general, the issuer survey (FR 3063a) would collect information separately for each government-administered program for which the depository institution is the issuer of general-use prepaid cards as well as in the aggregate for all programs. The issuer survey would collect information on card programs using two types of authentication mechanisms: dual-message transactions (those generally requiring a signature) and single-message transactions (those generally requiring the input of a personal identification number (PIN)).
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. The best terms to use in identifying types of authentication mechanisms (single-message and dual-message versus PIN and signature) given that not all dual-message transactions require a signature and not all single-message transactions require a PIN.
The issuer survey would comprise 10 sections:
I.
II.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. The ability of issuers to provide the total number of recipients receiving payments, regardless of payment method.
III.
IV.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. The ability of issuers to provide the total value of all funds disbursed, regardless of payment method.
b. Whether any funding patterns during the month may change significantly an issuer's response depending on the as-of date requested.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. Whether fees paid for over-the-counter at-bank (teller) cash withdrawals should be included in the survey.
IX.
X.
Responding to the government survey (FR 3063b) would be voluntary for approximately 60 government entities, including the states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories (collectively “state governments”). The survey would collect information about the prevalence of use of general-use prepaid cards in federal, state, and local government-administered payment programs.
The government survey would comprise four sections:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
The issuer survey (FR 3063a) and the government survey (FR 3063b) would be made available online by mid-February 2012 and would request that the surveys be completed and returned to the Board within 30 calendar days.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. Whether 30 calendar days allows sufficient time for respondents to complete the proposed surveys.
2.
The obligation to respond to these surveys is mandatory. In accordance with the statutory requirement, the Board will release aggregate or summary information from the survey responses. Some of the data collected by the surveys may be kept confidential under exemption (b)(4) of FOIA, which exempts from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). Information collected under the surveys can be kept confidential under exemption (b)(4) if the release of data would cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the respondent.
On September 13, 2010, the Board distributed three surveys to industry participants (a card issuer survey, a payment card network survey, and a merchant acquirer/processor survey) designed to gather information to assist the Board in developing Regulation II. Industry participants, including payment card networks, trade groups, and individual firms from both the banking industry and merchant community, commented on preliminary versions of the 2010 issuer and network surveys, through both written submissions and a series of drop-in calls. In response to the comments, the two surveys were modified, as appropriate.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. The feasibility of requiring each chartered entity that issues debit cards to complete a separate survey rather than requiring a holding company to complete one survey for all its chartered entities, as was done in the 2010 card issuer survey (12 CFR 235.8(b)).
In general, the debit card issuer survey (FR 3064a) would collect information on card programs that use two types of authentication mechanisms: Dual-message transactions (those generally requiring a signature) and single-message transactions (those generally requiring the input of a personal identification number (PIN)). Both programs include general-use prepaid card transactions.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. The best terms to use in identifying types of processing (single-message and dual-message versus PIN and signature) given that not all dual-message transactions require a signature and not all single-message transactions require a PIN.
b. Whether issuers should report general-use prepaid card data combined with other transaction data related to single- or dual-message systems (and if so, whether they would be able to do so) or should report general-use prepaid card activity separately.
The debit card issuer survey would comprise four sections:
I.
II.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. Whether the guidance provided in the proposed survey is sufficient for issuers to report authorization, clearing, and settlement costs;
b. The usefulness of including a checklist of fraud prevention activities and, if so, which fraud prevention activities should be included in the checklist for the 2012 survey. If a checklist is provided in the survey, are the activities proposed in the draft survey (transaction monitoring, merchant blocking, data security, and PIN customization) the right categories or are other categories more meaningful? If a checklist is provided in the survey, the listed activities could be updated over time based on “other” activities reported.
c. The issuers' ability to allocate payments and incentives as specified and whether other major categories of payments and incentives should be included.
d. The issuers' ability to report the subset of customer service costs associated with customer inquiries regarding particular debit card transactions (as opposed to customer inquiries regarding the account, the debit card more generally, or credit cards/ATM cards).
III.
IV.
The payment card network survey (FR 3064b) would require payment card networks to submit information about debit card (including general-use prepaid card) transaction volume and value; interchange fees; other network fees; and incentives and discounts paid to acquirers, merchants, and issuers.
The network survey would comprise two sections:
I.
II.
The Board specifically requests comment on the following:
a. The payment card networks' ability to identify separately general-use prepaid card transactions from other debit card transactions.
b. Whether the networks can provide data for exempt and non-exempt issuers that compares information for three time periods: January 1 to June 30, 2011 (during which all transactions would be considered exempt); July 1 to September 30, 2011 (during which all transactions could be considered exempt, but some networks may begin to distinguish between exempt and non-exempt issuers, if such networks are offering a tiered interchange fee schedule); and October 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (during which all networks that provide a tiered interchange fee schedule would distinguish between exempt and non-exempt issuers).
The Board would make the payment card network survey available online by mid-January 2012 and would request that the survey be completed and submitted to the Board within 30 calendar days. The debit card issuer survey would be made available by mid-February 2012 and would request that the survey be completed and submitted to the Board within 60 calendar days.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 12, 2011.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2011.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Stacey Ferguson (202-326-2361) or James A. Prunty (202-326-2438), FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and §2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 8, 2011), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 10, 2011. Write “DERMAPPS, File No. 102 3205” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “DERMAPPS, File No. 102 3205” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Kobe Brown and Gregory W. Pearson, dba DERMAPPS (“respondents”).
The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves the advertising of a mobile software application (“app”) called AcneApp which respondents developed and sold in Apple's iTunes Store. Respondents claimed that AcneApp effectively treats acne. The instructions for this app directed consumers to hold the light-emitting display screen next to the area of skin to be treated for several minutes each day.
The Commission's complaint alleges that respondents violated Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act by claiming, without substantiation, that the app provided an effective treatment for acne. The complaint also alleges that the respondents falsely represented that a study published in the British Journal of Dermatology proves that blue and red light therapy, such as that provided by AcneApp, is an effective treatment for acne.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondents from engaging in similar practices in the future. Part I of the order prohibits respondents from making any representation that AcneApp, or any other device, as defined by Section 15 of the FTC Act, provides effective treatment for acne, unless respondents have competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate that claim.
Part II of the order requires respondents to have competent and reliable scientific evidence before making any safety, performance, benefits, or efficacy claim about any device.
Part III of the order is a standard order provision relating to establishment claims, prohibiting the misrepresentation of any research, tests, or studies.
Part IV of the order requires respondents, within 15 days of the order, to pay the Commission $14,294.
The remaining parts of the proposed order are standard provisions regarding record-keeping, dissemination of the order to officers and employees, prior notification to the Commission of corporate changes, notification of new employment, filing compliance of reports, and sunsetting of the order.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2011.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Stacey Ferguson (202-326-2361) or James A. Prunty (202-326-2438), FTC, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 USC 46(f), and § 2.34 the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for September 8, 2011), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before October 10, 2011. Write “Andrew N. Finkel, File No. 102 3206” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “Andrew N. Finkel, File No. 102 3206” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Andrew N. Finkel (“respondent”).
The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves the advertising of a mobile software application (“app”) called Acne Pwner which respondent developed and sold in Google's Android Marketplace. Respondent claimed that Acne Pwner effectively treats acne. The instructions for this app directed consumers to hold the light-emitting display screen next to the area of skin to be treated for a few minutes each day.
The Commission's complaint alleges that respondent violated Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act by claiming, without substantiation, that the app provided an effective treatment for acne.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondent from engaging in similar practices in the future. Part I of the order prohibits respondent from making any representation that Acne Pwner, or any other device as defined by Section 15 of the FTC Act, provides effective treatment for acne, unless respondent has competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate that claim.
Part II of the order requires respondent to have competent and reliable scientific evidence before making any safety, performance, benefits, or efficacy claim about any device.
Part III of the order requires respondent, within 15 days of the date the order becomes final, to pay the Commission $1,700.
The remaining parts of the proposed order are standard provisions regarding recordkeeping, dissemination of the order to officers and employees, prior notification to the Commission of corporate changes, notification of new employment, filing of compliance reports, and sunsetting of the order.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
By direction of the Commission.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees from the General Electric Co. in Evendale, Ohio, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On August 31, 2011, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:
All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at General Electric Co. in Evendale, Ohio, from January 1, 1961 through June 30, 1970, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.
This designation will become effective on September 30, 2011, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the
Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice.
The “Ensuring Safe Transitions from Hospital to Home” challenge tasks developers with creating technology solutions that empower discharged patients to take charge of their health care during transitions of places of care. Innovative applications will help patients and their caregivers insure that they have all the information and materials, such as drug prescriptions, medical equipment, follow-up appointments, and emergency contacts, that they need to move safely to their next care setting.
The statutory authority for this challenge competition is Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-358).
Effective on September 12, 2011.
To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity:
(1) Shall have registered to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated by Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology;
(2) Shall have complied with all the requirements under this section;
(3) In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States; and
(4) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment.
An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
Registered participants shall be required to agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from their participation in a competition, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
Participants shall be required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility, in amounts determined by the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, for claims by—
(1) A third party for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with participation in a competition, with the Federal Government named as an additional insured under the registered participant's insurance policy and registered participants agreeing to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to competition activities; and
(2) the Federal Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity.
Participants must be teams of at least two people.
All participants are required to provide written consent to the rules upon or before submitting an entry.
• Submission Period Begins: 12:01 a.m., E.D.T., September 12, 2011.
• Submission Period Ends: 11:59 p.m., E.D.T., November 16, 2011.
To register for this challenge participants should:
• Access the
• Access the ONC Investing in Innovation (i2) Challenge Web site at:
○
○ A registration link for the challenge can be found on the landing page under the challenge description.
• First Prize: $25,000.
• Second Prize: $10,000.
• Third Prize: $5,000.
Awards may be subject to Federal income taxes and HHS will comply with IRS withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.
The judging panel will make selections based upon the following criteria:
1. Innovation.
2. Usability/Design.
3. Potential for impact.
4. Data integration.
5. Use of NwHIN standards and services.
Ownership of intellectual property is determined by the following:
• Each entrant retains title and full ownership in and to their submission. Entrants expressly reserve all intellectual property rights not expressly granted under the challenge agreement.
• By participating in the challenge, each entrant hereby irrevocably grants to Sponsor and Administrator a limited, non-exclusive, royalty free, worldwide, license and right to reproduce, publically perform, publically display, and use the Submission to the extent necessary to administer the challenge, and to publically perform and publically display the Submission, including, without limitation, for advertising and promotional purposes relating to the challenge.
15 U.S.C. 3719.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, HHS.
Notice.
Medical devices will play an increasingly large role in the monitoring and collection of patient data with the spread of electronic health records. The United States has a limited system for the post-market surveillance of medical devices, specifically as it relates to monitoring product safety and effectiveness. The “Reporting Device Adverse Events Challenge” asks multi-disciplinary teams to develop an application that facilitates the reporting of adverse events related to medical devices, whether implanted or used in the hospital, clinic, or home.
The statutory authority for this challenge competition is Section 105 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-358).
Effective on September 12, 2011.
To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, an individual or entity:
(1) Shall have registered to participate in the competition under the rules
(2) Shall have complied with all the requirements under this section;
(3) In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating singly or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States; and
(4) May not be a Federal entity or Federal employee acting within the scope of their employment.
An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used Federal facilities or consulted with Federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.
Registered participants shall be required to agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the Federal Government and its related entities, except in the case of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from their participation in a competition, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.
Participants shall be required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility, in amounts determined by the head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, for claims by—
(1) A third party for death, bodily injury, or property damage, or loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with participation in a competition, with the Federal Government named as an additional insured under the registered participant's insurance policy and registered participants agreeing to indemnify the Federal Government against third party claims for damages arising from or related to competition activities; and
(2) the Federal Government for damage or loss to Government property resulting from such an activity.
Participants must be teams of at least two people.
All participants are required to provide written consent to the rules upon or before submitting an entry.
• Submission Period Begins: 12:01 a.m., E.D.T., September 12, 2011.
• Submission Period Ends: 11:59 p.m., E.D.T., December 2, 2011.
To register for this challenge participants should:
• Access the
• Access the ONC Investing in Innovation (i2) Challenge Web site at:
○
○ A registration link for the challenge can be found on the landing page under the challenge description.
• First Prize: $25,000.
• Second Prize: $10,000.
• Third Prize: $5,000.
Awards may be subject to Federal income taxes and HHS will comply with IRS withholding and reporting requirements, where applicable.
The judging panel will make selections based upon the following criteria:
1. Effectiveness in facilitating adverse event reporting.
2. Usability and design.
3. Ability to integrate with electronic health records and other data sources.
4. Creativity and Innovation.
5. Use of NwHIN standards and services.
Ownership of intellectual property is determined by the following:
• Each entrant retains title and full ownership in and to their submission. Entrants expressly reserve all intellectual property rights not expressly granted under the challenge agreement.
• By participating in the challenge, each entrant hereby irrevocably grants to Sponsor and Administrator a limited, non-exclusive, royalty free, worldwide, license and right to reproduce, publically perform, publically display, and use the Submission to the extent necessary to administer the challenge, and to publically perform and publically display the Submission, including, without limitation, for advertising and promotional purposes relating to the challenge.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Health Literacy Item Set Supplemental to CAHPS Health Plan Survey—Pretest of Proposed Questions and Methodology.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by October 17, 2011.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by e-mail at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by e-mail at
The Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) program is a multi-year initiative. AHRQ first launched the program in October 1995 in response to concerns about the lack of good information about the quality of health plans from the enrollees' perspective. Numerous public and private organizations collected information on
• Make it possible to compare survey results across sponsors and over time; and
• Generate tools and resources that sponsors can use to produce understandable and usable comparative information for consumers, health providers and for quality improvement purposes.
Over time, the program has expanded beyond its original focus on health plans to address a range of health care services and to meet the various needs of health care consumers, purchasers, health plans, providers, and policymakers. Based on a literature review and an assessment of currently available questionnaires, AHRQ identified the need to develop a health literacy module for the CAHPS® Health Plan Survey. The intent of the health literacy module is to examine health plan enrollees' perspectives on how well health information is communicated to them by health plans and by healthcare professionals in the health plan setting. The objective of the new module is to provide information to health plans, clinicians, group practices, and other interested parties regarding the quality of health information delivered to patients. The health literacy module will be pre-tested as a supplement to the CAHPS® Health Plan Survey.
This pre-test has the following goals:
(1) Analysis of item wording—Assess candidate wordings for items.
(2) Analysis of participation rate—Evaluate the overall response rate and the proportion of that obtained from mail versus telephone modes of data collection.
(3) Case mix adjustment analysis—Evaluate variables that need to be considered for case mix adjustment of scores.
(4) Psychometric Analysis—Provide information for the revision of the health literacy item set based on the assessment of the reliability and validity.
(5) Dissemination of the CAHPS Health Plan Health Literacy supplemental item set.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, the RAND Corporation, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct research and evaluations on health care and systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services. See 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1).
To achieve the goals of this pre-test the CAHPS Health Plan Health Literacy Survey will be implemented with a sample of persons from the surveys' target population, consumers of health care services offered by health plans. The data from this pre-test will be used to refine the health literacy module questions and will ensure that the future data collection yield high quality data and ensure a minimization of respondent burden, increase agency efficiency, and improve responsiveness to the public. The survey items will be added to currently available CAHPS surveys and will enhance the ability of health plans and health professionals working in a health plan primary care setting to assess the quality of their services.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden for the respondents' time to participate in this data collection. About 1000 persons will complete the CAHPS Health Plan Survey Health Literacy Module. The estimated response time of 25 minutes is based on the written length of the survey and AHRQ's experience with previous CAHPS® surveys of comparable length that were fielded with similar samples. The total burden hours are estimated to be 417 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the respondents' cost burden associated with their time to participate in this data collection. The total cost burden is estimated to be $8,715.
Exhibit 3 shows the total and annualized cost to conduct this research. The total cost for this project is approximately $299,000. Since the data collection period is less than one year, the total and annualized costs are identical.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component 2012-2013.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by October 17, 2011.
Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by e-mail at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by e-mail at
Employer-sponsored health insurance is the source of coverage for 85 million current and former workers, plus many of their family members, and is a cornerstone of the U.S. health care system. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Insurance Component (MEPS-IC) measures the extent, cost, and coverage of employer-sponsored health insurance on an annual basis. These statistics are produced at the National, State, and sub-State (metropolitan area) level for private industry. Statistics are also produced for State and Local governments.
This research has the following goals:
(1) To provide data for Federal policymakers evaluating the effects of National and State health care reforms;
(2) to provide descriptive data on the current employer-sponsored health insurance system and data for modeling the differential impacts of proposed health policy initiatives; and
(3) to supply critical State and National estimates of health insurance spending for the National Health Accounts and Gross Domestic Product.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Census Bureau and pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct surveys to collect data on the cost, use and quality of health care, including the types and costs of private health insurance. 42 U.S.C. 299b-2(a).
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections for both private sector and state and local government employers will be implemented:
(1) Prescreener Questionnaire—The purpose of the Prescreener Questionnaire, which is collected via telephone, varies depending on the insurance status of the establishment contacted. (Establishment is defined as a single, physical location in the private sector and a governmental unit in state and local governments.) For establishments that do not offer health insurance to their employees, the prescreener is used to collect basic information such as number of employees. Collection is completed for these establishments through this telephone call. For establishments that do offer health insurance, contact name and address information is collected that is used for the mailout of the establishment and plan questionnaires. Obtaining this contact information helps ensure that the questionnaires are directed to the person in the establishment best equipped to complete them.
(2) Establishment Questionnaire—The purpose of the mailed Establishment Questionnaire is to obtain general information from employers that provide health insurance to their employees. Information such as total active enrollment in health insurance, other employee benefits, waiting periods, and retiree health insurance is collected through the establishment questionnaire.
(3) Plan Questionnaire—The purpose of the mailed Plan Questionnaire is to collect plan-specific information on each plan (up to four plans) offered by establishments that provide health insurance to their employees. This questionnaire obtains information on total premiums, employer and employee contributions to the premium, and plan enrollment for each type of coverage offered—single, employee-plus-one, and family—within a plan. It also asks for information on deductibles, copays, and other plan characteristics. This information is needed in order to provide the tools for Federal, State, and academic researchers to evaluate current and proposed health policies and to support the production of important statistical measures for other Federal agencies.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondent's time to provide the requested data. The Prescreener questionnaire will be completed by 31,552 respondents and takes about 5
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this data collection. The annualized cost burden is estimated to be $614,256.
Exhibit 3 shows the estimated annualized cost of this data collection. The total cost over the 2 years of this clearance is $22,954,000.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ healthcare research and healthcare information
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS; Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice; establishment of dockets; request for comments, data, and information.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) are announcing the establishment of dockets to obtain comments, data, and evidence relevant to the dietary intake of sodium as well as current and emerging approaches designed to promote sodium reduction. FDA and FSIS are particularly interested in research that will help both organizations understand current and emerging practices by industry in sodium reduction in foods; current consumer understanding of the role of sodium in hypertension and other chronic illnesses, sodium consumption practices; motivation and barriers in reducing sodium in their food intakes; and issues associated with the development of targets for sodium reduction in foods to promote reduction of excess sodium intake. Excess sodium intake is linked to increased risk of heart disease and stroke. FDA and FSIS recognize ongoing efforts by a number of members of the restaurant and packaged food industries to reduce sodium and appreciate the complexities of reducing sodium in foods. Continued input and support from industry and other stakeholders are important to support further progress on this significant public health issue.
Submit either electronic or written comments and data and information by November 29, 2011.
Research shows that excess sodium consumption is a contributory factor in the development of hypertension, which is a leading cause of heart disease and stroke (Ref. 1), the first and fourth leading causes of death in the United States, respectively (Ref. 2). Research also shows that the increase in blood pressure seen with aging, common to most Western countries, is not observed in populations that consume low sodium diets (Refs. 3 and 4) and that the U.S. population consumes far more sodium than recommended (Ref. 5 and 7). Moreover, dietary reduction of sodium can lower blood pressure as has been demonstrated in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)-Sodium trial (Ref. 6). Because over three-quarters of sodium in the diet of the U.S. population is added during manufacturing of foods and preparation of restaurant foods, reduction in sodium consumption in the United States involves reduction in the sodium content of food in the U.S. marketplace (Refs. 5 and 7).
In this document, we refer primarily to “sodium,” a component of sodium chloride, commonly known as “salt.” Most but not all sodium is added to food in the form of salt and we are interested in all sources of sodium added to foods. The comments, data, and evidence regarding sodium reduction obtained by the establishment of these dockets will provide important information about current and emerging practices and approaches designed to reduce excess sodium intake, primarily coming from salt.
According to national food survey data from the “What We Eat in America, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2008,” estimated average sodium intake from foods among persons in the United States aged 2 years or older is approximately 3,300 milligrams per day (mg/d) (excluding salt added at the table) (Ref. 8). Most of this sodium comes from salt used in the manufacture or preparation of foods (Ref. 9). In 2005, the IOM set a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for sodium at 2,300 mg/d and an Adequate Intake (AI) at 1,500 mg/d for those 9 to 50 years of age, including pregnant and lactating women (AIs are lower for those 0-8 years of age and for those over 50 years of age) (Ref. 1). The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommendations are to “reduce daily sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams (mg) and further reduce intake to 1,500 mg among persons who are 51 and older and those of any age who are African American or have hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease.” The 1,500 mg recommendation applies to about half of the U.S. population (Ref. 7). Current sodium intake is substantially higher
The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans also stated that “Given the current U.S. marketplace and the resulting excessive high sodium intake, it is challenging to meet even the less than 2,300 mg recommendation” and that a concerted effort is needed to reduce sodium in foods to help consumers meet the levels recommended (Ref. 7).
An analysis of the potential savings from reduced sodium consumption in the U.S. adult population found that reducing average dietary sodium intake to 2,300 mg/d among adults 18 years or older could have substantial health and financial benefits. Estimates showed potential reduction of 11 million hypertension cases and an annual savings of $18 billion health care costs (Ref. 11). Another assessment on the cost-effectiveness of reducing sodium intake found that an intervention achieving a reduction of 1,200 mg/d would save $10 to $24 billion in health care costs annually, comparable to benefits of population-wide reductions in tobacco use, obesity, and cholesterol levels (Ref. 12). Furthermore, this analysis found that a modest reduction over 10 years of about 400 mg sodium/d would be more cost-effective than using medications to lower blood pressure in all persons with hypertension (Ref. 12).
Since 1980, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have made recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, including “avoid too much sodium,” “use salt and sodium only in moderation,” and “choose and prepare foods with less salt” (Refs. 7 and 13 through 17).
FDA has supported these recommendations with a variety of initiatives designed to promote informed choices on the part of consumers. In 1984, FDA required that information on sodium be included on the label whenever nutrition information appeared on food labels (49 FR 15510, April 18, 1984). In 1990, Congress enacted the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which mandated nutrition labeling of food. In response to the NLEA, in 1993 FDA issued regulations requiring the declaration of sodium in absolute amounts and as a percentage of the Daily Value (58 FR 2206, January 6, 1993). FDA has also established standards for sodium-related nutrient content and health claims (
FSIS, the agency responsible for nutrition labeling requirements for meat and poultry products, also coordinates and collaborates with FDA on nutrition labeling issues. In 1993, FSIS issued regulations establishing nutrition labeling requirements for meat and poultry products (9 CFR 317, part 381, subpart Y). These regulations, similar to FDA's nutrition labeling regulations, required the declaration of sodium in absolute amounts and as a percentage of the Daily Value on the labeling of nonexempted meat and poultry products. In December 2010, FSIS issued regulations to ensure nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products on labels or at point-of-purchase, unless an exemption applies (75 FR 82148, December 29, 2010). These regulations also require nutrition labels on all ground or chopped meat and poultry products, with or without added seasonings, unless an exemption applies. Thus, these regulations increase the type of meat and poultry products that must declare sodium in absolute amounts and as a percentage of the Daily Value in their labeling.
Other U.S. public health agencies and organizations have also sought to inform consumers and encourage reduced sodium intake. In addition to conveying the benefits of reducing sodium related to hypertension through professional and consumer education activities, the NHLBI published guidelines recommending a sodium intake of no more than 2,400 mg/d dating back to 1993 (Refs. 20 through 26). More recently, the CDC has provided funding to various states and communities across the country in support of sodium reduction efforts to help create healthier food environments and reduce sodium intake by the population (Ref. 27). In addition, USDA, through the nutrition programs of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, promotes consumer messages related to sodium reductions via the interactive, web-based dietary assessment and weight management resources at ChooseMyPlate.gov, as well as through its MyPlate 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans consumer communications initiative and Consumer Brochure.
In 2008, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene initiated the National Sodium Reduction Initiative (NSRI), a partnership of 70 local and state health departments and health organizations, which has set targets to reduce sodium in restaurant and processed foods (Ref. 28). The goal of NSRI is to decrease average sodium intake by 20 percent over 5 years (2009 through 2014) by developing stepwise reductions from 2009 base levels to those desired by 2014. To-date, 28 companies have responded to NSRI, committing to reductions in the sodium content of some of their products.
These initiatives have been accompanied by efforts by industry, where a number of companies have played, and continue to play, a leadership role. Many food companies recognize that reduction of sodium in the American diet is an important public health issue. Some major food manufacturers have publicly committed to reducing the sodium content of their products over time. Certain companies have voluntarily identified specific product goals for sodium reduction. Many have demonstrated that substantial reductions in sodium can be achieved in certain food products and have established research programs to address key issues such as taste preference, technological advances, safety, and consumer acceptance in working through challenges and gaps in knowledge.
Other countries are also engaged in sodium reduction activities (Refs. 29 and 30).
In April 2010, the IOM released a report entitled “Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States.” The report concluded that sodium intake, with the greatest contribution from salt, remains well above recommended levels despite several decades of education, labeling, and outreach efforts to reduce sodium consumption in the United States (Ref. 5). In the report, the committee considered past and current sodium reduction initiatives, consumer preference, the functional roles of sodium in food, research needs, regulatory options, and nutrition labeling in developing its recommendations. The IOM report acknowledged a number of complicating factors in reducing sodium in food. Although sodium primarily plays a role in altering taste, the IOM report noted that sodium chloride and other sodium-containing ingredients play a critical role in food safety by reducing the growth of pathogens thereby improving safety and shelf-life. In addition, these compounds provide functional and physical properties such as improving texture, controlling stickiness, and improving meltability. Among other things, the IOM report noted that more research is needed to develop and implement new technologies for sodium reduction and discussed the role of voluntary action by industry.
According to data presented to the IOM committee during the March 2009 public information gathering workshop (see Appendix L of the IOM Sodium Report), approximately 75 percent of the total sodium intake for most individuals is attributed to salt added as an ingredient or processing aid to processed and restaurant foods (Ref. 5). Sodium in the form of salt is added to food for many reasons. For example, salt functions as a seasoning agent and flavor-enhancer, a preservative and curing agent, a formulating and processing aid, and a dough conditioner (Ref. 5). Salt added at the table and in cooking provides only a small proportion of the total sodium that Americans consume (Ref. 9). A number of other sodium-containing ingredients contribute to sodium intake in lesser amounts (<1 percent) (Ref. 31). Some examples include sodium alginate, which alters viscosity; sodium phosphates, which bind liquid to reduce purge, in particular for solution-enhanced meat and poultry products; sodium sulfite, sodium nitrite, and sodium benzoate, which preserve food and inhibit microbial growth; and sodium lactate, diacetate, and acetate, which are dual purpose for flavoring and antimicrobial (pathogen reduction) purposes (Ref. 32). Non-sodium forms of these ingredients, which replace sodium with compounds such as potassium, calcium, and magnesium, are also available for some of these applications (Ref. 31).
According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), individual and mixed foods contributing the highest proportion of sodium to the U.S. diet include yeast breads (250 mg/d), chicken and chicken mixed dishes (233 mg/d), pizza (217 mg/d), pasta and pasta dishes (174 mg/d), and cold cuts (155 mg/d) (Ref. 33). The CDC reported that close to 40 percent of daily sodium intake comes from grain-based products, such as breads, cakes, cookies, and crackers, and that almost 30 percent comes from processed meat products, such as bacon, sausage, lunch meat, poultry, and fish mixtures (Ref. 10). Sodium occurs naturally in nearly all foods; however this intrinsic sodium is not a significant dietary contributor for most Americans. Essentially, any single-ingredient food is low in sodium.
FDA and FSIS are considering potential ways to promote gradual, achievable and sustainable reduction of sodium intake over time. Research on a variety of issues, including the development of possible targets for the reduction of the sodium content of foods, is needed to assist FDA and FSIS in this effort. Sodium-containing food ingredients are used for multiple purposes at variable levels in diverse foods. The sodium intake of the U.S. population reflects both the sodium levels of individual foods and the amounts of foods consumed. As such, there are a variety of factors that may inform judgments about appropriate opportunities for sodium reduction. These factors include:
1. The important role that sodium has in food safety with respect to limiting microbial growth and maintaining the shelf-life of some foods;
2. The effect of sodium reduction on the physical attributes (
3. The feasibility, practicality, and cost of reducing sodium in various food categories;
4. The magnitude (time and percent sodium reduction) of any gradual or stepwise reduction effort;
5. The need to act gradually in a manner that is acceptable to consumers, while also achieving significant sodium reduction, because taste preference for sodium is acquired and can be modified (Refs. 34 and 35).
FDA and FSIS are establishing dockets to provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments, research, data, and other information that will better inform them about current and emerging practices by the private sector in sodium reduction; current consumer understanding of the role of sodium in hypertension and other chronic illnesses; sodium consumption practices; motivation and barriers in reducing sodium in their food intakes; and issues associated with the development of targets for sodium reduction in foods to promote reduction in excess sodium intake. In particular, both agencies welcome input on the following matters:
1. Comments and research related to recent sodium reduction initiatives by industry and the effects of those initiatives;
2. Comments and research related to consumer understanding of the role of sodium in hypertension and other chronic illnesses, sodium consumption practices, and motivation and barriers in reducing sodium in their food intakes;
3. Comments and research related to effective strategies for sustainable and meaningful reduction of sodium in foods sold in packaged or prepared form across the food supply, including and in particular foods with a high sales volume;
4. Comments and research related to existing or potential positive incentives for innovation in reformulating packaged and restaurant foods to reduce added sodium;
5. Comments and research related to the recommendations from the April 2010 IOM Sodium report on “Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States,” including research related to information gaps identified in the IOM report (taste preferences for sodium, technological role of sodium/salt, role of food matrix, food safety,
6. Comments and research related to the following: (a) Methods for establishing sodium reduction targets, including information on general target design (
7. Comments and research related to avoiding potential unintended consequences for food safety, nutrition (including effects on added sugars or solid fats), or food manufacturing technologies that could result from interventions to reduce sodium;
8. Comments and research related to existing voluntary sodium reduction efforts, including the voluntary sodium reduction targets set by the New York City-initiated NSRI partnership, and their applicability to a potentential federal sodium reduction initiative;
9. Comments and research related to food formulation, processing, production, and other technology that could lead to meaningful and sustainable reductions in the amount of sodium in food, including specific food categories, targets, and methods to monitor;
10. Comments and research on the role that food standards of identity play in promoting or limiting the feasibility of sodium reduction of foods (among other things, standards of identity for certain foods define the nature of those foods, generally in terms of how those foods are prepared, the types of ingredients that they must contain (
11. Comments and research on any advantages of sodium to consumers, including but not limited to, food safety, nutrition, and palatability;
12. Comments and research on the economic impacts of reducing sodium, including but not limited to, the cost of food, agricultural production, small businesses, jobs, and the health care system;
13. Comments and research on the impact of sodium reduction initiatives on consumer food choices and compliance with 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommendations;
14. Comments and research related to how consumers respond to sodium reductions (
15. Comments and research related to effective methods for communicating to the public the health benefits associated with the sodium intake levels recommended by the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
We anticipate that some interested persons may wish to provide FDA and FSIS with certain comments, research, data, and information that they consider to be trade secret or confidential commercial information (CCI) that would be exempt under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). You may claim information that you submit to FDA and FSIS as CCI or trade secret by clearly marking both the document and the specific information as “confidential.” Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the specific agency's disclosure regulations (FDA's regulations under 21 CFR part 20; FSIS's regulations under 9 CFR part 390). For electronic submissions to
A
Because two docket numbers are associated with this document, please include with your comments the docket number that corresponds with the appropriate agency. Comments submitted for inclusion in both dockets should be separately submitted to each identified docket number to ensure consideration.
FDA has placed the following references on display in FDA's Division of Dockets Management (see
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (#205) entitled “Guidance for Industry on Studies To Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Metabolism Study To Determine the Quantity and Identify the Nature of Residues (MRK),” (VICH GL46). This guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This VICH guidance document is intended to provide recommendations for internationally harmonized test procedures to study the quantity and nature of residues of veterinary drugs in food-producing animals.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Julia Oriani, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-151), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8204,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (#205) entitled “Guidance for Industry on Studies To Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Metabolism Study To Determine the Quantity and Identify the Nature of Residues (MRK)” (VICH GL46). In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Approval of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency, European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products, the U.S. FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
Four observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of Canada, and one representative from the industry of Canada. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.
In the
This VICH guidance document is one of a series developed to facilitate the mutual acceptance by national/regional regulators of residue chemistry data for veterinary drugs used in food-producing animals. This guidance was prepared after consideration of the current national/regional requirements and recommendations for evaluating veterinary drug residues in the European Union, Japan, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
Although this guidance recommends a framework for metabolism testing, it is important that the design of the studies remains flexible. It is recommended that studies be tailored to sufficiently characterize the components of the residue of concern.
The human food safety evaluation of veterinary drug residues helps ensure that food derived from treated food-producing animals is safe for human consumption. As part of the data collection process, studies should be conducted to permit an assessment of the quantity and nature of residues in food derived from animals treated with a veterinary drug. These metabolism studies provide data on: (1) The depletion of residues of concern from edible tissues of treated animals at varying times after drug administration; (2) the individual components, or residues, that comprise the residue of concern in edible tissues; (3) the residue(s) that can serve as marker for analytical methods intended for compliance purposes (
This guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). For example, the document has been designated “guidance” rather than “guideline.” In addition, guidance documents must not include mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” “require,” or “requirement,” unless FDA is using these words to describe a statutory or regulatory requirement.
This guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this guidance have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (#207) entitled “Guidance for Industry on Studies To Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Marker Residue Depletion Studies To Establish Product Withdrawal Periods,” (VICH GL48). This guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This VICH guidance document is intended to provide study design recommendations that will facilitate the universal acceptance of the generated residue depletion data to fulfill the national/regional requirements.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Julia Oriani, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-151), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8204,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (#207) entitled “Guidance for Industry on Studies To Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Marker Residue Depletion Studies To Establish Product Withdrawal Periods,” (VICH GL48). In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Approval of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency, European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products, the U.S. FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
Four observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of Canada, and one representative from the industry of Canada. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.
In the
This VICH guidance document is one of a series developed to facilitate the mutual acceptance by national/regional regulators of residue chemistry data for veterinary drugs used in food-producing animals. This guidance was prepared after consideration of the current national/regional requirements and recommendations for evaluating veterinary drug residues in the European Union, Japan, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
As part of the approval process for veterinary medicinal products in food-producing animals, national/regional regulatory authorities require data from marker residue depletion studies in order to establish appropriate withdrawal periods in edible tissues, including meat, milk, and eggs. The objective of this guidance is to provide study design recommendations that will facilitate the universal acceptance of the generated residue depletion data to
This guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). For example, the document has been designated “guidance” rather than “guideline.” In addition, guidance documents must not include mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” “require,” or “requirement,” unless FDA is using these words to describe a statutory or regulatory requirement.
This guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this guidance have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (#206) entitled “Guidance for Industry on Studies to Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Comparative Metabolism Studies in Laboratory Animals” (VICH GL47). This guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This VICH guidance document is intended to provide recommendations for internationally harmonized procedures to identify the metabolites of veterinary drugs produced by laboratory animals used for toxicological testing for the purpose of comparison to the residues of veterinary drugs in edible tissues of food-producing animals.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Julia Oriani, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-151), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8204,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (#206) entitled “Guidance for Industry on Studies to Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Comparative Metabolism Studies in Laboratory Animals” (VICH GL47). In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Approval of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency, European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products, the U.S. FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
Four observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of
In the
This VICH guidance document is one of a series developed to facilitate the mutual acceptance by national/regional regulators of residue chemistry data for veterinary drugs used in food-producing animals. This guidance was prepared after consideration of the current national/regional requirements and recommendations for evaluating veterinary drug residues in the European Union, Japan, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
The objective of this guidance is to provide recommendations for internationally harmonized procedures to identify the metabolites of veterinary drugs produced by laboratory animals. The purpose of the comparative metabolism studies is to compare the metabolites of the animals used for toxicological testing to the residues of the veterinary drugs in edible tissues of food-producing animals in order to determine if the laboratory animals used for toxicological testing have been exposed to the metabolites that humans can be exposed to as residues in products of food-producing animal origin.
The human food safety evaluation of veterinary drug residues helps ensure that food derived from treated food-producing animals is safe for human consumption. As part of the data collection process, studies should be conducted to characterize the metabolites to which laboratory animals are auto-exposed during the toxicological testing of the veterinary drug. The purpose of these studies is to determine whether the metabolites that people will consume from tissues of target food-producing animals are also produced by metabolism in the laboratory animals used for the safety testing.
This guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). For example, the document has been designated “guidance” rather than “guideline.” In addition, guidance documents must not include mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” “require,” or “requirement,” unless FDA is using these words to describe a statutory or regulatory requirement.
This guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this guidance have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (#208) entitled “Guidance for Industry on Studies to Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Validation of Analytical Methods Used in Residue Depletion Studies,” (VICH GL49). This guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This VICH guidance document is intended to provide a general description of the criteria that have been found by the European Union, Japan, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to be suitable for the validation of analytical methods used in veterinary drug residue depletion studies.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Submit electronic comments on the guidance to
Julia Oriani, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-151), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-8204,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry (#208) entitled “Guidance for Industry on Studies to Evaluate the Metabolism and Residue Kinetics of Veterinary Drugs in Food-Producing Animals: Validation of Analytical Methods Used in Residue Depletion Studies,” (VICH GL49). In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Approval of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency, European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products, the U.S. FDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
Four observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of Canada, and one representative from the industry of Canada. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.
In the
This VICH guidance document is one of a series developed to facilitate the mutual acceptance by national/regional regulators of residue chemistry data for veterinary drugs used in food-producing animals. This guidance was prepared after consideration of the current national/regional requirements and recommendations for evaluating veterinary drug residues in the European Union, Japan, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
During the veterinary drug development process, residue depletion studies are conducted to determine the concentration of the residue or residues present in the edible products (tissues, milk, eggs, or honey) of animals treated with veterinary drugs. This information is used in regulatory submissions around the world. Submission of regulatory methods (
This guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). For example, the document has been designated “guidance” rather than “guideline.” In addition, guidance documents must not include mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” “require,” or “requirement,” unless FDA is using these words to describe a statutory or regulatory requirement.
This guidance represents the Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at either
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry (#214) entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry, Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal Products: Electronic Standards for Transfer of Data” (VICH GL35). This draft guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This draft VICH guidance document is intended to provide recommended standards to construct a single electronic message to transmit data elements for submission of adverse event reports (AERs) to all member regions.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by November 14, 2011.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Communications Staff (HFV-12), Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request. See the
Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to
Margarita Brown, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-240), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9048, e-mail:
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry (#214) entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry, Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal Products: Electronic Standards for Transfer of Data (VICH GL35).” In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Approval of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission, European Medicines Evaluation Agency, European Federation of Animal Health, Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products, U.S. FDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Animal Health Institute, the Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association, the Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics, and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
Four observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand, one representative from the government of Canada, and one representative from the industry of Canada. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH). An IFAH representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.
The VICH Steering Committee held a meeting in June 2010, and agreed that the draft guidance document entitled “Draft Guidance for Industry on Pharmacovigilance of Veterinary Medicinal Products: Electronic Standards for Transfer of Data” (VICH GL35) should be made available for public comment. This draft VICH guidance document is intended to provide recommended standards to construct a single electronic message to transmit data elements for submission of AERs to all member regions.
The need to transfer and disseminate information quickly, accurately and easily between Regulatory Authorities (RA) and Marketing Authorization Holders (MAH) on a worldwide scope is especially pertinent to the notification and assimilation of information for pharmacovigilance. Whereas the recommended definition of the pharmacovigilance information has
In order to allow for electronic exchange of this information between stakeholders, further specification of the field descriptors and their relationships, including agreement on format of the electronic message is essential.
FDA and the VICH Expert Working Group will consider comments about the draft guidance document.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in this guidance have been approved under OMB Control No. 0910-0284.
This draft guidance, developed under the VICH process, has been revised to conform to FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). For example, the document has been designated “guidance” rather than “guideline.” In addition, guidance documents must not include mandatory language such as “shall,” “must,” “require,” or “requirement,” unless FDA is using these words to describe a statutory or regulatory requirement.
The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIA.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute on Aging, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and thediscussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentablematerial, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications,the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
September 26, 2011, 9 a.m.-1:30 p.m.
901 N. Stuart Street, Tenth Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Open session.
• Approval of the Minutes of the June 6, 2011, Meeting of the Board of Directors
• Strategic Planning
• President and Management Report
• Communications Strategy
• Advisory Council
• Next Meetings
• Approval of the Minutes of the June 6, 2011, Meeting of the Board of Directors
• Strategic Planning
• President and Management Report
• Communications Strategy
• Advisory Council
• Next Meetings
• None
Jennifer Hodges Reynolds, General Counsel, (703) 306-0002.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice.
This notice lists programs or portions of programs that are eligible for inclusion in Fiscal Year 2012 funding agreements with self-governance Indian tribes and lists programmatic targets for each of the non-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) bureaus in the Department of the Interior, pursuant to the Tribal Self-Governance Act.
This notice expires on September 30, 2012.
Inquiries or comments regarding this notice may be directed to Sharee M. Freeman, Director, Office of Self-Governance (MS 355H-SIB), 1849 C
Title II of the Indian Self-Determination Act Amendments of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-413, the “Tribal Self-Governance Act” or the “Act”) instituted a permanent self-governance program at the Department of the Interior. Under the self-governance program, certain programs, services, functions, and activities, or portions thereof, in Interior bureaus other than BIA are eligible to be planned, conducted, consolidated, and administered by a self-governance tribal government.
Under section 405(c) of the Tribal Self-Governance Act, the Secretary of the Interior is required to publish annually: (1) A list of non-BIA programs, services, functions, and activities, or portions thereof, that are eligible for inclusion in agreements negotiated under the self-governance program; and (2) programmatic targets for these bureaus.
Under the Tribal Self-Governance Act, two categories of non-BIA programs are eligible for self-governance funding agreements:
(1) Under section 403(b)(2) of the Act, any non-BIA program, service, function or activity that is administered by Interior that is “otherwise available to Indian tribes or Indians,” can be administered by a tribal government through a self-governance funding agreement. The Department interprets this provision to authorize the inclusion of programs eligible for self-determination contracts under Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638, as amended). Section 403(b)(2) also specifies, “nothing in this subsection may be construed to provide any tribe with a preference with respect to the opportunity of the tribe to administer programs, services, functions and activities, or portions thereof, unless such preference is otherwise provided for by law.”
(2) Under section 403(c) of the Act, the Secretary may include other programs, services, functions, and activities or portions thereof that are of “special geographic, historical, or cultural significance” to a self-governance tribe.
Under section 403(k) of the Tribal Self-Governance Act, funding agreements cannot include programs, services, functions, or activities that are inherently Federal or where the statute establishing the existing program does not authorize the type of participation sought by the tribe. However, a tribe (or tribes) need not be identified in the authorizing statutes in order for a program or element to be included in a self-governance funding agreement. While general legal and policy guidance regarding what constitutes an inherently Federal function exists, the Secretary will determine whether a specific function is inherently Federal on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of circumstances.
Subpart G of the self-governance regulations found at 25 CFR part 1000 provides the process and timelines for negotiating self-governance funding agreements with non-BIA bureaus.
Comments were received from two Tribal entities (Coquille Indian Tribe and Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments) and two Federal entities (National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
The Coquille Indian Tribe suggested the following: (1) Revising Section I. Background [next to the last paragraph] to indicate that the Secretary (not each non-BIA bureau) will determine whether a specific function is inherently Federal on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of circumstances. This change was made; (2) Revising Section III. A. Eligible Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Programs [Other Activities paragraph] to change the title of Item 2. to Natural Resources Management (from Forestry Management) and insert silvicultural treatments, timber management, cultural resource management, watershed restoration as additional activities. This change was made; (3) Revising Section III. A. Eligible Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Programs [Other Activities paragraph] to insert implementation of statutory, regulatory and policy or administrative plan-based species protection efforts as additional activities to Item 6. Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management. This change was made; (4) Add the Administration of Forest Management Deductions as a third program to Section III. G. Eligible Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) Programs. This change was not made. This is a decision beyond the authority of the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians to make.
The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments suggested the following: (1) Listing the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments in Section II. as having a Self-Governance Funding Agreement with the Bureau of Land Management. This change was made; and (2) Keep Subsistence Programs within the State of Alaska in the final
The National Park Service suggested adding the following three Parks to the National Park Service section listing Locations of National Park Service Units with Close Proximity to Self-Governance Tribes: (1) Isle Royale National Park—Michigan; (2) Great Smoky Mountains National Park—North Carolina/Tennessee; and (3) Yosemite National Park—California. These changes were made.
The Fish and Wildlife Service suggested adding the following three Refuges to the Fish and Wildlife Service section listing Locations of Refuges and Hatcheries with Close Proximity to Self-Governance Tribes: (1) National Bison Range—Montana; (2) Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge—Montana; and (3) Pablo National Wildlife Refuge—Montana. These changes were made.
Below is a listing by bureau of the types of non-BIA programs, or portions thereof, that may be eligible for self-governance funding agreements because
The Department will also consider for inclusion in funding agreements other programs or activities not listed below, but which, upon request of a self-governance tribe, the Department determines to be eligible under either sections 403(b)(2) or 403(c) of the Act. Tribes with an interest in such potential agreements are encouraged to begin discussions with the appropriate non-BIA bureau.
The BLM carries out some of its activities in the management of public lands through contracts and cooperative agreements. These and other activities, dependent upon availability of funds, the need for specific services, and the self-governance tribe demonstrating a special geographic, culture, or historical connection, may also be available for inclusion in self-governance funding agreements. Once a tribe has made initial contact with the BLM, more specific information will be provided by the respective BLM State office.
Some elements of the following programs may be eligible for inclusion in a self-governance funding agreement. This listing is not all-inclusive, but is representative of the types of programs that may be eligible for tribal participation through a funding agreement.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Jerry Cordova, Bureau of Land Management (20 M St. WS-5242), 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone: (202) 912-7245, fax: (202) 452-7701.
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To this end, most of the Reclamation's activities involve the construction, operation and maintenance, and management of water resources projects and associated facilities, as well as research and development related to its responsibilities. Reclamation water resources projects provide water for agricultural, municipal and industrial water supplies; hydroelectric power generation; flood control; outdoor recreation; and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats.
Components of the following water resource projects listed below may be eligible for inclusion in a self-governance annual funding agreement. This list was developed with consideration of the proximity of identified self-governance tribes to Reclamation projects.
1. Klamath Project, California and Oregon.
2. Trinity River Fishery, California.
3. Central Arizona Project, Arizona.
4. Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System, Montana.
5. Indian Water Rights Settlement Projects, as authorized by Congress.
Upon the request of a self-governance tribe, Reclamation will also consider for inclusion in funding agreements, other programs or activities which Reclamation determines to be eligible under Section 403(b)(2) or 403(c) of the Act.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Mr. Douglas Oellermann, Deputy Director, Native American and International Affairs Office, Bureau of Reclamation (96-43000) (MS 7069-MIB); 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, telephone: (202) 513-0560, fax: (202) 513-0311.
Effective October 1, 2010, the Minerals Revenue Management program moved from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (formerly MMS) to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget (PMB) and became the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). The ONRR collects, accounts for, and distributes mineral revenues from both Federal and Indian mineral leases.
The ONRR also evaluates industry compliance with laws, regulations, and lease terms, and offers mineral-owning tribes opportunities to become involved in its programs that address the intent of tribal self-governance. These programs are available regardless of self-governance intentions or status and are a good prerequisite for assuming other technical functions. Generally, ONRR program functions are available to tribes because of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1983 (FOGRMA) at 30 U.S.C. 1701. The ONRR program functions that may be available to self-governance tribes include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
For questions regarding self-governance contact Shirley M. Conway, Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management and Budget—1801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 4th Floor, 403D, Washington, DC 20006, telephone: (202) 254-5554, fax: (202) 254-5589.
The National Park Service administers the National Park System, which is made up of national parks, monuments, historic sites, battlefields, seashores, lake shores and recreation areas. The National Park Service maintains the park units, protects the natural and cultural resources, and conducts a range of visitor services such as law enforcement, park maintenance, and interpretation of geology, history, and natural and cultural resources.
Some elements of the following programs may be eligible for inclusion in a self-governance funding agreement. This list below was developed considering the proximity of an identified self-governance tribe to a national park, monument, preserve, or recreation area and the types of programs that have components that may be suitable for contracting through a self-governance funding agreement. This list is not all-inclusive, but is representative of the types of programs which may be eligible for tribal participation through funding agreements.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Dr. Patricia Parker, Chief, American Indian Liaison Office, National Park Service (Org. 2560, 9th Floor), 1201 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-5905, telephone: (202) 354-6962, fax: (202) 371-6609.
The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is, working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Primary responsibilities are for migratory birds, endangered species, freshwater and anadromous fisheries, and certain marine mammals. The Service also has a continuing cooperative relationship with a number of Indian tribes throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Service's fish hatcheries. Any self-governance tribe may contact a National Wildlife Refuge or National Fish Hatchery directly concerning participation in Service programs under the Tribal Self-Governance Act. This list is not all-inclusive, but is representative of the types of Service programs that may be eligible for tribal participation through an annual funding agreement.
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Service developed the list below based on the proximity of identified self-governance tribes to Service facilities that have components that may be suitable for contracting through a self-governance funding agreement.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Patrick Durham, Fish and Wildlife Service (MS-330), 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, telephone: (703) 358-1728, fax: (703) 358-1930.
The mission of the USGS is to collect, analyze, and provide information on biology, geology, hydrology, and geography that contributes to the wise management of the Nation's natural resources and to the health, safety, and well-being of the American people. This information is usually publicly available and includes maps, data bases, and descriptions and analyses of the water, plants, animals, energy, and mineral resources, land surface, underlying geologic structure, and dynamic
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Monique Fordham, National Tribal Liaison, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 911, Reston, VA 20192, telephone 703-648-4437, fax 703-648-6683.
The Department of the Interior has responsibility for what may be the largest land trust in the world, approximately 56 million acres. OST oversees the management of Indian trust assets, including income generated from leasing and other commercial activities on Indian trust lands, by maintaining, investing and disbursing Indian trust financial assets, and reporting on these transactions. The mission of the OST is to serve Indian communities by fulfilling Indian fiduciary trust responsibilities. This is to be accomplished through the implementation of a Comprehensive Trust Management Plan (CTM) that is designed to improve trust beneficiary services, ownership information, management of trust fund assets, and self-governance activities.
A tribe operating under self-governance may include the following programs, services, functions, and activities or portions thereof in a funding agreement:
1.
2.
The MOU between the tribe/consortium and OST outlines the roles and responsibilities for the performance of the OST program by the tribe/consortium. If those roles and responsibilities are already fully articulated in the existing funding agreement with the BIA, an MOU is not necessary. To the extent that the parties desire specific program standards, an MOU will be negotiated between the tribe/consortium and OST, which will be binding on both parties and attached and incorporated into the BIA funding agreement.
If a tribe/consortium decides to assume the operation of an OST program, the new funding for performing that program will come from OST program dollars. A tribe's newly-assumed operation of the OST program(s) will be reflected in the tribe's funding agreement.
For questions regarding self-governance, contact Lee Frazier, Program Analyst, Office of External Affairs, Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (MS 5140—MIB), 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240-0001, phone: (202) 208-7587, fax: (202) 208-7545.
During Fiscal Year 2012, upon request of a self-governance tribe, each non-BIA bureau will negotiate funding agreements for its eligible programs beyond those already negotiated.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of Intent.
In compliance with the
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS and possible plan amendment. Comments on issues may be submitted in writing until October 17, 2011. The date(s) and location(s) of any scoping meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through the local news media, newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
Written comments related to the EIS and possible plan amendment may be submitted by the following methods:
For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Lynnette Elser, Planning and Environmental Coordinator; telephone (951) 697-5233; address 22835 Calle San Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553; e-mail
The applicant, enXco, has requested a right-of-way (ROW) authorization to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission the Desert Harvest Project. The proposed project would be located on BLM-administered lands in Riverside County about 6 miles north of the rural community of Desert Center, California. The overall site layout and generalized land uses would include a substation, an administration building, operations and maintenance facilities, a
The BLM segregated the public lands located within the Desert Harvest Project's application area from appropriation under the public land and mining laws, but not the mineral leasing or material sales acts, for a period of 25 years for the purpose of protecting potential sites for future solar energy development pursuant to 43 CFR 2091.3-1(e) and 43 CFR 2804.25(e) (76 FR 38416, June 30, 2011).
The purpose of the public scoping process is to determine relevant issues that will influence the scope of the environmental analysis, including alternatives, and guide the process for developing the Draft EIS. At present, the BLM has identified the following preliminary issues: Air quality, biological resources, recreation, cultural resources, water resources, geological resources, special management areas, land use, noise, paleontological resources, public health, socioeconomic, soils, traffic and transportation, and visual resources.
Pursuant to the BLM's CDCA Plan, sites associated with power generation or transmission not identified in the CDCA Plan will be considered through the plan amendment process to determine the suitability of the site for renewable energy development. Since the proposed Desert Harvest Project site was not previously identified as suitable, authorization of the Desert Harvest Project will require amendment of the CDCA Plan. By this notice, the BLM is complying with requirements in 43 CFR 1610.2(c) to notify the public of potential amendments to CDCA Plan predicated on the findings in the EIS. If a land-use-plan amendment is necessary, the BLM will integrate the land-use planning process with the NEPA process for the Desert Harvest Project. A preliminary list of the potential planning criteria that will be used to help guide and define the scope of the plan amendment process includes:
1. The plan amendments will be completed in compliance with the FLPMA, NEPA, and all other relevant Federal laws, executive orders, and BLM policies;
2. Existing, valid plan decisions will not be changed and any new plan decisions will not conflict with existing plan decisions; and
3. The plan amendment(s) will recognize valid existing rights.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA public participation requirements to assist the agency in satisfying the public involvement requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470(f)) as provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Information about historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by the proposed Desert Harvest Project and potential CDCA Plan amendment will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources in the context of both NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. Native American tribal consultations will be conducted in accordance with applicable statutes, policies, and directives, and tribal concerns will be given due consideration, including impacts on Indian trust assets. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested or affected by the BLM's decision on this project are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate as a cooperating agency.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
As required by law, the Secretary of the Interior has transferred to the appropriate agencies jurisdiction over lands acquired for the benefit of Great Sand Dunes National Park, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, and the Rio Grande National Forest.
Maps, deeds, and documents related to this transfer may be reviewed at the National Park Service Land Resources Program Center, Intermountain Region, 12795 West Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado 80225-0287. The approved survey plats and field notes will be available for review at the Colorado State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215.
John Wessels, Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service, P.O. Box 25287, 12795 West Alameda Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado 80225-0287.
As authorized by section 8(a) of Public Law 106-530 (114 Stat. 2527, 2532), the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) acquired certain lands and interests in land for the benefit of Great Sand Dunes National Park, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, and the Rio Grande National Forest. Section 8(c) of Public Law 106-530 directed the Secretary to transfer administrative jurisdiction of these lands, as appropriate, to the National Park Service for addition to and administration as part of the Great Sand Dunes National Park; to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for addition to and administration as part of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge; and to the Secretary of Agriculture, for addition to and administration as part of the Rio Grande National Forest. The transferred lands were depicted on the map having drawing number 140/80/032 and were divided into zones as depicted on an exhibit map having drawing number 140/30,003.
Under the provisions of Section 8(c) of Public Law 106-530, and effective on November 22, 2000, the following transfers were made:
• Administrative jurisdiction of those lands depicted on the exhibit map as Zone A to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for addition to and
• Administrative jurisdiction on those lands depicted on the exhibit map as Zone B to the Secretary of Agriculture for addition to and administration as part of the Rio Grande National Forest; and
• Administrative jurisdiction on those lands depicted on the exhibit map as Zone C to the National Park Service for addition to and administration as part of the Great Sand Dunes National Park.
The boundaries of all or portions of these zones are being surveyed by the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. Upon approval by the Bureau of Land Management, these surveys will supplement this notice of transfer by providing the exact locations of the boundaries separating these zones. The approved survey plats and field notes will be available for review at the Colorado State Office of the Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 9) of the presiding administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) granting a joint motion to amend the notice of investigation in the above-captioned investigation.
Clint Gerdine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2310. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted this investigation on June 15, 2011, based on a complaint filed by Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. (“Lutron”) of Coopersburg, Pennsylvania. 76 FR 35015-16. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain lighting control devices including dimmer switches and parts thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,637,930 and 5,248,919. The complaint further alleges the existence of a domestic industry. The Commission's notice of investigation named several respondents including Elemental LED, LLC (“Elemental”) and Diode LED (“Diode”) of Emeryville, California.
On July 21, 2011, Lutron and respondents Elemental and Diode filed a joint motion to amend the notice of investigation to consolidate the named respondents Elemental and Diode into Elemental LED, LLC d/b/a Diode LED.
On August 22, 2011, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the joint motion to amend notice of investigation. No party petitioned for review of the ID pursuant to 19 CFR 210.43(a). The Commission has determined not to review this ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the
By order of the Commission.
Scheduling of expedited five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on helical spring lock washers from China and Taiwan.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on helical spring lock washers from China and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
Stefania Pozzi Porter (202-205-3177), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 17, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, NE., Room 2E-508, Washington, DC 20530.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 17, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments concerning this information collection should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 2E-508, Washington, DC 20530.
Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), Department of Justice.
Notice of a Modification of a System of Records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), notice is given that the Department of Justice proposes to modify a system of records notice, specifically the “Executive Clemency Case Files/Executive Clemency Tracking System,” JUSTICE/OPA-001, last published in the
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment. Therefore, please submit any comments by October 17, 2011.
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Congress are invited to submit any comments to the Privacy Analyst, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, Department of Justice, National Place Building, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1070, Washington, DC 20530.
Linda M. V. Bowe, Paralegal Specialist, 202.616.6070, Office of the Pardon Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.
The change in the text of the notice entitled “Executive Clemency Records Database (ECRD)/Executive Clemency Case Files” is shown below.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and the Congress on the modified system of records.
Executive Clemency Records Database (ECRD)/Executive Clemency Case Files.
Unclassified.
Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.
Individuals who have applied for or have been granted or denied executive clemency, and individuals who have corresponded with OPA, either directly or by referral, concerning persons who have applied for or have been granted or denied executive clemency. In addition, the categories of individuals covered by this system also include DOJ personnel, to include DOJ contractors, authorized to access and use the system.
The system contains data, documents and correspondence, in hard copy and/or electronic format, concerning the individual case files of persons who have applied for or been granted or denied executive clemency, which may include the following: The clemency petition; character affidavits; investigatory material; court-related documents (e.g., presentence reports, judgments of conviction, and court opinions); official court-martial documents (in military cases); prison progress reports and U.S. Parole Commission notices of action; media reports (
The system is established and maintained in order to carry out the duties assigned by the President, pursuant to the power granted him under the United States Constitution, Article II, section 2, to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Executive Order of the President 30-1, dated June 16, 1893; and Executive Order of the President No. 11878 (published at 40 FR 42731), as delegated by the Attorney General to OPA in 28 CFR 0.35 and 0.36 (Attorney General Order No. 1012-83, published at 48 FR 22290), and as described in 28 CFR 1.1 through 1.11 (Attorney General Order No. 1798-93, published at 58 FR 53658); and 44 U.S.C. 3101.
Executive clemency case files and the records contained within ECRD are maintained by the Attorney General or his designee to facilitate and document the functions of the Attorney General or his designee in receiving, investigating, and evaluating requests for executive clemency; preparing the necessary reports and recommendations from the DOJ to the President in clemency matters; serving as a liaison with clemency applicants and the public on clemency matters; and advising the President on the historical exercise of the clemency power. The system's use of computerized records facilitates an increased level of efficiency and automation with regard to the maintenance and use of information contained therein.
Information contained in this system may be disclosed as follows:
(a) To the President, and members of his staff, in order to assist him in the exercise of his constitutional clemency power.
(b) To any person or entity, whose comments on a particular clemency matter are solicited by OPA in connection with its investigation and review of a case, to the extent deemed by OPA to be necessary in order to enable such persons to respond to the request.
(c) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the federal government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
(d) To a private contractor or federal agency for the purpose of preparing bound and indexed volumes containing originals and/or photocopies of the official warrant of clemency granted each clemency recipient as a public and official record of Presidential action.
(e) Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law.
(f) To a federal, state, local, or tribal agency, including prosecution, corrections, sentencing, parole, or probation authorities, in order to assist it in the execution of appropriate actions necessary to implement a Presidential clemency decision or in the performance of its official duties.
(g) To federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, foreign, or international licensing agencies or associations which require information concerning the suitability or eligibility of an individual for a license or permit.
(h) In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the DOJ determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(i) To the news media and the public, including disclosures pursuant to 28 CFR § 50.2, unless it is determined that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(j) To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
(k) To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections and accessions conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
(l) To former employees of the Department for purposes of: Responding to an official inquiry by a federal, state, local, or tribal government entity or professional licensing authority, in accordance with applicable Departmental regulations; or facilitating communications with a former employee that may be necessary for personnel-related or other official purposes where the Department requires information and/or consultation assistance from the former employee regarding a matter within that person's former area of responsibility.
(m) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) It is suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Department has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Department or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Department's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(n) To appropriate officials and employees of a federal agency or entity when the information is relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail, or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
None.
All records which are part of Executive Clemency Case Files are stored within OPA's work area in individual file folders in a secure file room or file cabinets with controlled access, and/or other appropriate GSA-approved security containers. All records which are part of ECRD are stored in electronic form in a secure client/server configuration.
Individual case files which are part of Executive Clemency Case Files are retrieved primarily by the name of the person who applied for or was granted or denied executive clemency but also may be retrieved via any piece of uniquely identifying data (
All records which are part of Executive Clemency Case Files are secured through the use of safes, locked file cabinets, and/or restricted access to the space in which they are located.
All records which are part of ECRD are safeguarded in accordance with DOJ rules and policies governing automated systems security and access; entry to the system takes place through individual login of OPA employees and other authorized DOJ personnel; mandatory training is required of all system users; and a thorough audit trail keeps track of user activity within ECRD.
All paper records are stored within OPA's work area while clemency is pending, and generally for up to two years after the date of final action. Closed case files are transferred to the Washington National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland one full year after the calendar year in which the case was closed. Except for copies of reports furnished to the President on particular clemency matters, clemency warrants and other documents reflecting the President's action in clemency cases, case files in any cases in which clemency is granted, case files in other cases designated by the Pardon Attorney as having significant public interest, and notices issued by OPA to the Office of Public Affairs of the DOJ, case files at the Washington National Records Center are destroyed no sooner than 25 years
All records within ECRD are maintained within the system while a clemency petition is pending and for fifteen years after the year in which the case was closed. Copies of all records pertaining to cases closed in the previous calendar year contained within the system are sent to NARA on an annual basis. OPA maintains legal custody of these records until fifteen years have elapsed, at which point the records within ECRD are destroyed and NARA becomes the legal custodian of the records. This change occurs in accordance with Records Disposition Authority DA-204-2011-0001 or successor Records Disposition Authority.
Pardon Attorney, Office of the Pardon Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.
Address inquiries to the Pardon Attorney, Office of the Pardon Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, or e-mail inquiries to
The Attorney General has exempted executive clemency records from various provisions of the Privacy Act, including the access and amendment provisions, to the extent such exemptions apply pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the purposes of the system or the law enforcement process, the applicable exemption (in whole or in part) may be waived by the OPA in its sole discretion. These requests for discretionary releases of records shall be made either in writing or via email to the system manager listed above with the envelope and letter or subject line clearly marked “Privacy Access Request.” Include in the request the general subject matter of the document. Provide full name, current address, date and place of birth, signature, all of (which must be either be notarized or submitted under penalty of perjury), and a return address or email address for transmitting the information.
Same as Record Access Procedures.
Sources of information include: individual applicants for clemency, their representatives, and persons who write, confer with, or orally advise OPA concerning those applicants; investigatory reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of the Department of Homeland Security and other appropriate government agencies; records of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; reports of the Armed Forces; presentence reports provided by the Bureau of Prisons or the federal Probation Offices; reports of the U.S. Parole Commission; data provided by the Office of White House Counsel; comments and recommendations from current and former federal and state officials; and employees of the Department of Justice.
The Attorney General has exempted this system from subsections (c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e)(5) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). Rules have been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 (b), (c), and (e) and have been published in the
By Notice dated June 7, 2011, and published in the
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance in bulk for the manufacture of a controlled substance.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco Inc. to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Noramco Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.
Pursuant to § 1301.33(a), Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on August 3, 2011, Chemic Laboratories, Inc., 480 Neponset Street, Building 7, Canton, Massachusetts 02021, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the above listed controlled substance for distribution to its customers for the purpose of research.
Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substance, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).
Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than November 14, 2011.
60-day Notice of Information Collection Under Review.
The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with established review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until November 14, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
All comments, suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, to include obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Mr. Gregory E. Scarbro, Unit Chief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, CJIS Division, Module E-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306, or facsimile to (304) 625-3566.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology andassumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street, NE., Room 2E-508, Washington, DC 20530.
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Notice.
The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2010 was $28,284. The average annual cost to confine an inmate in a Community Corrections Center for Fiscal Year 2010 was $25,838.
Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First St., NW., Washington, DC 20534.
Sarah Qureshi, (202) 307-2105.
28 CFR part 505 allows for assessment and collection of a fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates. We calculate this fee by dividing the number representing Bureau facilities' monetary obligation (excluding activation costs) by the number of inmate-days incurred for the preceding fiscal year, and then by multiplying the quotient by 365.
Under § 505.2, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons determined that, based upon fiscal year 2010 data, the fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2010 was $28,284. The average annual cost to confine an inmate in a Community Corrections Center for Fiscal Year 2010 was $25,838.
The Legal Services Corporation (“LSC” or “Corporation”) Board of Directors (“Board”) will meet telephonically on September 19, 2011 at 11 a.m., Eastern Time.
Legal Services Corporation, F. William McCalpin Conference Center, 3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007.
Open.
Members of the public who wish to listen to the proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions given below but are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. From time to time the Chairman may solicit comments from the public.
• Call toll-free number: 1-(866) 451-4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348;
• When connected to the call, please “Mute” your telephone immediately.
1. Approval of agenda.
2. Consider and act on the recommendation of the Operations & Regulations Committee regarding specific approach and statutory language change(s) to suggest to the White House and Congress for replacement of decennial census poverty data in distributing LSC field grants.
3. Consider and act on the Finance Committee's recommendation to the Board a to LSC's appropriations request for FY 2013 (Resolution 2011-012).
4. Consider and act on renaming of the Board's Development Committee (Resolution 2011-013).
5. Other Business.
6. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Corporate Secretary, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
LSC complies with the American's with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals that need other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward at (202) 295-1500 or
The
The notice of this meeting was previously published in the
If attending this meeting, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice.
Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review directs agencies to review and improve their regulatory processes. As a result of this regulatory review, and in response to comments by premium payers and pension professionals, PBGC is providing relief from certain premium penalties and in certain situations involving alternative premium funding target elections.
Catherine B. Klion, Manager, Regulatory and Policy Division, Legislative and Regulatory Department, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, 202-326-4024 or
As a result of PBGC's regulatory review under Executive Order 13563 and in response to comments by premium payers and pension professionals, PBGC is granting relief in several situations:
• For 2011 and later plan years, PBGC will waive premium penalties assessed solely because payments are late by not more than seven calendar days.
• For 2010 and later plan years, PBGC is providing relief similar to, but more expansive, than the relief provided in Technical Update 10-2 (Variable Rate Premiums; Alternative Premium Funding Target Elections; Box 5 Relief).
• For 2008 and 2009 plan years, PBGC will waive premium penalties for late premiums in connection with certain box 5 errors.
Under ERISA section 4007 and PBGC's regulation on Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007), late payment charges—interest and late payment penalties—apply to required annual premium payments that are not timely made. Penalties (but not interest) may be waived in accordance with the premium payment regulation. PBGC's premium penalty policy is set forth in the appendix to the premium payment regulation.
For plan years beginning after 2010, PBGC will automatically waive premium payment penalties that are assessed solely because premium payments are late by not more than seven calendar days.
For plan years beginning after 2007, PBGC's premium regulations allow a plan to elect to use the alternative premium funding target to calculate its variable rate premium (VRP). The regulations require that such an election be filed with PBGC before the VRP due date. A plan makes an election by
For 2008 and 2009 plan years, over ninety-five percent of the plans that used the alternative method filed valid elections to do so. However, some plans that used the alternative method did not make a valid election to do so and later requested that PBGC treat them as having made a valid election. In response, on June 16, 2010, PBGC issued Technical Update 10-2, under which a plan was deemed to have made a valid election if certain conditions were met.
Most plans with box 5 errors for 2008 or 2009 plan years were eligible for the Technical Update 10-2 relief or were granted similar relief upon reconsideration based on the facts and circumstances. PBGC spent considerable time reviewing requests for reconsideration to ensure that due process was followed, that plans with similar situations were treated consistently, and that discretion was exercised fairly and reasonably. To date, PBGC has denied fewer than 50 requests for reconsideration with respect to box 5 errors in 2008 or 2009 plan years.
Premium payers and pension professionals requested further relief from box 5 errors, including relief for plan years starting after 2009 and relief for plans that did not qualify for the Technical Update 10-2 relief for 2008 and 2009 plan years.
PBGC has taken steps to reduce box 5 errors for 2010 and later plan years. The agency has modified its online Premium Filing application (MyPAA) to provide additional “error check” or “alert” notices. PBGC assists vendors with their systems and encourages vendors to have similar error check and alert notices as MyPAA. PBGC urges all filers to check filings to avoid making errors, pay close attention to the MyPAA warnings, and print and save receipts showing that filings are actually submitted.
Despite these efforts, PBGC still occasionally finds box 5 errors. PBGC is providing relief similar to, but more expansive, than the relief provided in Technical Update 10-2 for plan years beginning after 2009. Specifically, relief is available where the plan used the alternative method to determine the VRP for the applicable plan year without filing a valid election to do so for the applicable plan year or a prior plan year. Similar relief is available where the plan used the standard method, but inadvertently made an election to use the alternative method for the applicable plan year (
In either case, PBGC bases its determination of which method was used to determine the VRP for the applicable plan year solely on the information reported in line 7d(1) of part III (Premium Information). For example, if “alternative” is checked, PBGC determines that the alternative method was used.
If an election to use the alternative method is invalid solely because the filing was submitted after the due date, relief is available only if the filing is not an amendment of a timely filing in which the plan used the standard method to determine the VRP and the filing is submitted by the earlier of:
• The 90th day after the filing due date.
• The 30th day after the date of any PBGC notification that no filing has been received.
PBGC is contacting plans entitled to this relief to explain the options and actions required, if any (
In situations where a plan with a box 5 error for 2008 or 2009 plan years was not eligible for the Technical Update 10-2 relief and a request for reconsideration was denied (or not submitted), the plan was required to amend the applicable premium filing and recalculate the VRP using the standard method. In some cases, this resulted in additional premium being due. Because the additional premium was paid after the due date, late payment charges (penalties and interest) were assessed on the additional premium. In many cases, the late payment penalties were equal to 100 percent of the additional premium. In response to concerns of premium payers and pension professionals, PBGC will waive premium penalties in connection with these errors for 2008 and 2009 plan years.
PBGC will also waive premium penalties for plans that used the standard method but inadvertently checked box 5 and were required to recalculate the VRP using the alternative method.
PBGC will contact plans entitled to this penalty relief. If a plan entitled to this relief has already paid the late payment penalty, the penalty amount will be converted into a credit that can be used to offset future premiums. If a plan entitled to this relief has not amended the relevant filing and paid the additional premium due, PBGC will waive the penalty only if the filing is amended and the additional premium paid within 30 days of the notification.
For questions, contact Robert Callahan of the Financial Operations Department at 202-326-4067, ext. 3258, or
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
This document informs the public that an appeal of the closing of the Etna, New York post office has been filed. It identifies preliminary steps and provides a procedural schedule. Publication of this document will allow the Postal Service, petitioners, and others to take appropriate action.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), on September 2, 2011, the Commission received a petition for review of the Postal Service's determination to close the Etna post office in Etna, New York. The petition was filed by Heather Marshall (Petitioner) and is postmarked August 24, 2011. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and establishes Docket No. A2011-61 to consider Petitioner's appeal. If Petitioner would like to further explain her position with supplemental information or facts, Petitioner may either file a Participant Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the Commission no later than October 7, 2011.
After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than those set forth above, or that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record with the Commission is September 19, 2011.
The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via electronic mail at
The Commission reserves the right to redact personal information which may infringe on an individual's privacy rights from documents filed in this proceeding.
1. The Postal Service shall file the applicable administrative record regarding this appeal no later than September 19, 2011.
2. Any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this notice is due no later than September 19, 2011.
3. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Malin Moench is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
This document informs the public that an appeal of the closing of the South International Falls, Minnesota post office has been filed. It identifies preliminary steps and provides a procedural schedule. Publication of this document will allow the Postal Service, petitioners, and others to take appropriate action.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), on September 6, 2011, the Commission received a petition for review of the Postal Service's determination to close the South International Falls post office in South International Falls, Minnesota. The petition was filed by the Concerned Citizens of South International Falls, Minnesota (Petitioner) and is postmarked August 27, 2011. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and establishes Docket No. A2011-63 to consider Petitioner's appeal. If Petitioner would like to further explain its position with supplemental information or facts, Petitioner may either file a Participant Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the Commission no later than October 11, 2011.
After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than the one set forth above, or that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record with the Commission is September 21, 2011.
The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via electronic mail at
The Commission reserves the right to redact personal information which may infringe on an individual's privacy rights from documents filed in this proceeding.
1. The Postal Service shall file the applicable administrative record regarding this appeal no later than September 21, 2011.
2. Any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this notice is due no later than September 21, 2011.
3. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Kenneth E. Richardson is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
This document informs the public that an appeal of the closing of the Lincoln, Iowa post office has been filed. It identifies preliminary steps and provides a procedural schedule. Publication of this document will allow the Postal Service, petitioners, and others to take appropriate action.
Submit comments electronically by accessing the “Filing Online” link in the banner at the top of the Commission's Web site (
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820 (case-related information) or
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(d), on September 6, 2011, the Commission received a petition for review of the Postal Service's determination to close the Lincoln post office in Lincoln, Iowa. The petition was filed by the Citizens of Lincoln, Iowa (Petitioner) and is postmarked August 24, 2011. The Commission hereby institutes a proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) and establishes Docket No. A2011-62 to consider Petitioner's appeal. If Petitioner would like to further explain its position with supplemental information or facts, Petitioner may either file a Participant Statement on PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the Commission no later than October 11, 2011.
After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than those set forth above, or that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues. The deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record with the Commission is September 21, 2011.
The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission's docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via electronic mail at
The Commission reserves the right to redact personal information which may infringe on an individual's privacy rights from documents filed in this proceeding.
1. The Postal Service shall file the applicable administrative record regarding this appeal no later than September 21, 2011.
2. Any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this notice is due no later than September 21, 2011.
3. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted.
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, James Waclawski is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order in the
By the Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: 31 West 52nd Street, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10019.
Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6876, or Dalia Osman Blass, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Stone Harbor, the Trust's investment adviser, is organized as a Delaware limited partnership and is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), as amended.
2. Applicants request the exemption to the extent necessary to permit any existing or future series of the Trust and any other registered open-end management investment company or series thereof that (i) is advised by Stone Harbor or any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with Stone Harbor (any such adviser or Stone Harbor, an “Adviser”);
3. Consistent with its fiduciary obligations under the Act, each Fund of
1. Section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no registered investment company (“acquiring company”) may acquire securities of another investment company (“acquired company”) if such securities represent more than 3% of the acquired company's outstanding voting stock or more than 5% of the acquiring company's total assets, or if such securities, together with the securities of other investment companies, represent more than 10% of the acquiring company's total assets. Section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act provides that no registered open-end investment company may sell its securities to another investment company if the sale will cause the acquiring company to own more than 3% of the acquired company's voting stock, or cause more than 10% of the acquired company's voting stock to be owned by investment companies and companies controlled by them.
2. Section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act provides, in part, that section 12(d)(1) will not apply to securities of an acquired company purchased by an acquiring company if: (i) The acquired company and acquiring company are part of the same group of investment companies; (ii) the acquiring company holds only securities of acquired companies that are part of the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper; (iii) the aggregate sales loads and distribution-related fees of the acquiring company and the acquired company are not excessive under rules adopted pursuant to section 22(b) or section 22(c) of the Act by a securities association registered under section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or by the Commission; and (iv) the acquired company has a policy that prohibits it from acquiring securities of registered open-end investment companies or registered unit investment trusts in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(F) or (G) of the Act.
3. Rule 12d1-2 under the Act permits a registered open-end investment company or a registered unit investment trust that relies on section 12(d)(1)(G) of the Act to acquire, in addition to securities issued by another registered investment company in the same group of investment companies, government securities, and short-term paper: (i) Securities issued by an investment company that is not in the same group of investment companies, when the acquisition is in reliance on section 12(d)(1)(A) or 12(d)(1)(F) of the Act; (ii) securities (other than securities issued by an investment company); and (iii) securities issued by a money market fund, when the investment is in reliance on rule 12d1-1 under the Act. For the purposes of rule 12d1-2, “securities” means any security as defined in section 2(a)(36) of the Act.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction from any provision of the Act, or from any rule under the Act, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act.
5. Applicants state that the Funds of Funds will comply with rule 12d1-2 under the Act, but for the fact that the Funds of Funds may invest a portion of their assets in Other Investments. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 12d1-2(a) to allow the Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments while investing in Underlying Funds. Applicants assert that permitting the Funds of Funds to invest in Other Investments as described in the application would not raise any of the concerns that the requirements of section 12(d)(1) were designed to address.
Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following condition:
Applicants will comply with all provisions of rule 12d1-2 under the Act, except for paragraph (a)(2) to the extent that it restricts any Fund of Funds from investing in Other Investments as described in the application.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On July 7, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CHX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Act
The Commission hereby extends the 45-day time period for Commission
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 26, 2011, Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CHX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Under its former Interpretations and Policies .01(a) to CHX Article 20, Rule 9,
Without the ability to cancel the stock leg of the stock-option trade at the request of the Participants when the transaction representing the options leg has been cancelled, the Exchange states that the parties to the transaction would be left with an unwanted stock position, which originally was taken as a component of (
The Exchange also proposes to require that any request to cancel a transaction involving a stock-option order be made by or on behalf of all Participants that are parties to the transaction, rather than by any party. The Exchange believes that requiring all Participant parties to consent to the cancellation will help prevent the possible abuse by a single party acting unilaterally. The Exchange represents that the ultimate parties to the cash equities transaction are the same parties to the equity options transaction, so any cancellation of the Exchange transaction will not have an impact on other market participants.
Finally, the Exchange proposes corresponding recordkeeping requirements in connection with stock-option order cancellations. CHX Rule 9(b)(3) requires the Participant acting as the broker in trades cancelled pursuant to proposed Rule 9(b)(1)(ii) to maintain records sufficient to establish that the options leg in fact was cancelled by the options exchange on which it was executed. A new requirement of CHX Rule 9(b)(4) is that the Participant acting as broker on the trade identify the reason that the trade was cancelled. The Exchange states that it will use the records to verify that the requirements imposed by the proposed rule changes have been met, and would treat the failure to properly document such cancellations as a rule violation subject to disciplinary treatment under Article 12 of the Exchange's rules.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act
The Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule change,
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change should promote market efficiency by permitting CHX Participants, upon mutual consent, to cancel a trade that represents the stock leg of a stock-option order when the options leg trade is cancelled, thereby saving Participants the expense of liquidating the unwanted stock leg. The Commission notes that the Exchange will not cancel any transaction pursuant to the provisions of Rule 9(b) unless the original trade was identified by a special trade indicator.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
The Exchange proposes to amend its Complex Order Fees in Section I of its Fee Schedule titled “Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols.”
While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on September 1, 2011.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Section I, Part B of the Exchange's Fee Schedule for Complex Orders. A Complex Order is any order involving the simultaneous purchase and/or sale of two or more different options series in the same underlying security, priced at a net debit or credit based on the relative prices of the individual components, for the same account, for the purpose of executing a particular investment strategy. Furthermore, a Complex Order can also be a stock-option order, which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an underlying stock or ETF coupled with the purchase or sale of options contract(s).
The Exchange proposes to increase the current Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity in Designated Options
While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative on September 1, 2011.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to only pay a Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity to Customers, as compared to other market participants, and increase the Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity in Designated Options because this will incentivize members to direct Customer order flow to the Exchange in these Designated Options.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in Designated Options for Directed Participants because the proposed fee for options overlying the Designated Options remains competitive with fees charged by other exchanges and is reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct orders to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange. The proposed fee is within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges employing similar pricing schemes. For example, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”) provides its market makers a $0.02 reduction off the taker fee for removing liquidity in its Select Symbols from the complex order book by trading with orders that are preferenced to them.
With respect to the Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to pay a different rebate for transacting equity options in Designated Options, and with respect to the Directed Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to assess a different Fee for Removing Liquidity in the Designated Options. The Exchange currently pays a different Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity and assesses a different Directed Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in Designated Options as compared to other Select Symbols. Trading in Designated Options is different from trading in other symbols in that they are more liquid, have higher volume and competition for executions is more intense. The Exchange believes that paying different rebates and assessing different fees for Designated Options as compared to Select Symbols will incentivize trading in Designated Options and increase liquidity in the Designated Options, which in turn will benefit all market participants. With respect to the increased Directed Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity in Designated Options, the Exchange is increasing this fee to cover costs. Notwithstanding the increase in the fee, the Exchange believes that Directed Participants will continue to send order flow to the Exchange in Designated Options because the fee is within the range of fees assessed by other exchanges.
In addition, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pay a different Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for transacting equity options in certain symbols and with respect to the Directed Participant Complex Order Fee for Removing Liquidity the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a different Fee for Removing Liquidity in certain symbols because the Exchange uniformly pays the same Customer Complex Order Rebate for Adding Liquidity for all Customer Complex Orders in all Designated Options and the Exchange uniformly assesses the same Fee for Removing Liquidity to all Directed Participants Complex Orders in all Designated Options.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market comprised of nine U.S. options exchanges in which sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be excessive. The Exchange believes that the Complex Order fees and rebates it pays/assesses must be competitive with fees and rebates in place on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that this competitive marketplace impacts the fees and rebates present on the Exchange today and influences the proposals set forth above.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-126 and should be submitted on or before October 6, 2011.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
The Exchange filed a proposal for the BATS Options Market (“BATS Options”) to extend the availability of a recently introduced bulk-quoting interface for BATS Options Market Makers
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange currently offers an order-based interface for entering orders into the BATS Options trading platform. The Exchange also recently proposed modification to its systems to permit BATS Options Market Makers to utilize a bulk-quoting interface to enter orders into BATS Options.
The proposed bulk-quoting market making interface will be used by Users to submit and update their quotations in the marketplace much like the current order-based interface is used by such Users today. The bulk-quoting interface, however, allows Users to provide both a bid and an offer in one message. In addition, the bulk-quoting interface allows Users to bundle several quote updates into one bulk message. This is a useful feature for Users that provide quotations in many different options.
BATS Options does not require any Users to register as Options Market Makers in order to participate on BATS Options, nor does BATS Options limit the ability to post liquidity on both sides of the market to Options Market Makers. In fact, there are several Users that provide significant liquidity to BATS Options but are not registered as Options Market Makers. Some of these Users are registered on other options exchanges as market makers and others are not. Due to the enhanced liquidity and efficiencies the interface can provide, the Exchange believes that the bulk-quoting functionality should be available to all Users, not only Options Market Makers.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing 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, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay would allow the Exchange to immediately offer the interface to all Users without undue delay. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change does not require any significant system change as the functionality is already available to BATS Options Market Makers. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange is proposing to expand the operation of an existing price check parameter feature to its opening rotation process and to include an additional price check parameter feature for its complex order process. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange has in place various price check parameter features that are designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically executing at potentially erroneous prices. These price check parameter features are designed to help maintain a fair and orderly market. The Exchange is proposing to expand the operation of an existing price check parameter feature to its opening rotation process and to include an additional price check parameter feature for its complex order process. The Exchange believes the below-described protection features will enhance the existing functionality and assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by providing an automated process that helps to mitigate the potential risks associated with orders drilling through multiple price points on the opening (thereby resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous) and complex orders trading at prices that are inconsistent with particular complex order strategies (thereby resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous).
With respect to opening rotations, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.11,
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the application of the existing price check protection feature to apply to orders that are subject to the opening order exposure process, with certain modifications described below. In particular, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.11 to instead provide that, following the exposure process, the Exchange will not automatically execute or book the remaining balance of any orders not executed after an exposure on the opening that are priced or would execute at a price that is not within an acceptable tick distance from the initial exposure price. Any remaining balance of such orders will be cancelled.
For example, the Exchange may determine that an acceptable tick
The Exchange believes that extending the existing price protection feature to include the opening exposure process will assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the potential risks associated with orders drilling through multiple price points when the Exchange first opens for trading (thereby resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous). Rather than automatically executing or booking orders at extreme and potentially erroneous prices, the Exchange will cancel orders that exceed the price check parameter back to order entry firms so that the orders can be further evaluated.
With respect to the complex order process, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.13,
For example, under the new buy-buy/sell-sell strategy parameter feature, a limit order to sell 1 Mar 45 call where the individual option series trades in a minimum increment of $0.05 and the minimum net price increment for the complex order is $0.01 would be rejected if it has a net price of $0.00, any net debit price, or a net credit price that is less than $0.01 ($0.01 × (1 option leg)).
As another example, a limit order to sell 1 Mar 45 call and sell 1 Mar 50 call where the individual option series trade in a minimum increment of $0.05 and the minimum net price increment for the complex order is $0.01 would be rejected if it has a net price of $0.00, any net debit price, or a net credit price that is less than $0.02 ($0.01 × (2 options legs)).
As another example, assume two paired complex orders are submitted to an AIM auction and the minimum net price increment for the complex orders is $0.01. If the original Agency Order is a market order to sell 1 Mar 45 call and sell 1 Mar 50 call (which satisfies the price check parameter because the parameter is only triggered by limit prices), but the contra-side order to buy 1 Mar 45 call and buy 1 Mar 50 call has a net price of $0.00, the AIM auction will not initiate because the contra-side order does not satisfy the price check parameter. Such a contra-side order would appear to be erroneously priced because normally a person buying two series would expect to pay a net debit price of at least $0.02 (a price of at least $0.01—the minimum net price increment for the complex order—for each series being purchased). The contra-side order would be rejected. The paired original Agency Order would either be rejected along with the contra-side order or, at the order entry firm's discretion, continue processing as an unpaired complex order.
The Exchange believes that this new price protection feature will assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the potential risks associated with complex orders that are entered at net limit prices that are inconsistent with the particular “buy-buy” or “sell-sell” strategy (thereby resulting in execution at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous). Rather than automatically execute, book or auction orders at prices inconsistent with the strategy, the Exchange will reject the orders back to the order entry firms.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal.
Because the foregoing 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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange is proposing to expand the operation of an existing price check parameter feature to its opening rotation process and to include an additional price check parameter feature for its complex order process. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange has in place various price check parameter features that are designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically executing at potentially erroneous prices. These price check parameter features are designed to help maintain a fair and orderly market. The Exchange is proposing to expand the operation of an existing price check parameter feature to its opening rotation process and to include an additional price check parameter feature for its complex order process. The Exchange believes the below-described protection features will enhance the existing functionality and assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by providing an automated process that helps to mitigate the potential risks associated with orders drilling through multiple price points on the opening (thereby resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous) and complex orders trading at prices that are inconsistent with particular complex order strategies (thereby resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous).
With respect to opening rotations, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.2B,
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the application of the existing price check protection feature to apply to orders that are subject to the HAL/HAL2 exposure process, with certain modifications described below. In particular, the Exchange is proposing to amend the process noted in (i) and (ii) above to instead provide that, following the HAL/HAL2 exposure process, the CBOE Hybrid Trading System will not automatically execute or book the remaining balance of any orders not executed after HAL/HAL2 that are priced or would execute at a price that is not within an acceptable tick distance from the initial HAL/HAL2 price. Any remaining balance of such orders will route as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis to PAR or, at the order entry firm's discretion, to the order entry firm's booth (except that any remaining balance of opening contingency orders will be cancelled).
For example, the Exchange may determine that an acceptable tick distance for a series trading in penny increments with premiums ranging from $1.00—$2.99 is five ticks (
The Exchange believes that extending the existing price protection feature to include the opening HAL/HAL2 process will assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the potential risks associated with orders drilling through multiple price points when the Exchange first opens for trading (thereby resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous). Rather than automatically executing or booking orders at extreme and potentially erroneous prices, the Exchange will route orders that are not within the price check parameters to PAR or the order entry firm's booth so that the orders can be further evaluated.
With respect to the complex order process, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 6.53C,
For example, under the new buy-buy/sell-sell strategy parameter feature, a limit order to sell 1 Mar 45 call and sell 100 shares of stock where the individual option series trades in a minimum increment of $0.05 and the minimum net price increment for the complex order is $0.01 would be rejected if it has a net price of $0.00, any net debit price, or a net credit price that is less than $0.01 ($0.01 × (1 option leg)).
As another example, a limit order to sell 1 Mar 45 call, sell 1 Mar 50 call and sell 100 shares of stock where the individual option series trade in a minimum increment of $0.05 and the minimum net price increment for the complex order is $0.01 would be rejected if it has a net price of $0.00, any net debit price, or a net credit price that is less than $0.02 ($0.01 × (2 options legs)).
As another example, assume two paired complex orders are submitted to an AIM auction and the minimum net price increment for the complex orders is $0.01. If the original Agency Order is a market order to sell 1 Mar 45 call and sell 1 Mar 50 call (which satisfies the price check parameter because the parameter is only triggered by limit prices), but the contra-side order to buy 1 Mar 45 call and buy 1 Mar 50 call has a net price of $0.00, the AIM auction will not initiate because the contra-side order does not satisfy the price check parameter. Such a contra-side order would appear to be erroneously priced because normally a person buying two series would expect to pay a net debit price of at least $0.02 (a price of at least $0.01—the minimum net price increment for the complex order—for each series being purchased). The contra-side order would be rejected. The paired original Agency Order would either be rejected along with the contra-side order or, at the order entry firm's discretion, continue processing as an unpaired complex order.
The Exchange believes that this new price protection feature will assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the potential risks associated with complex orders that are entered at net limit prices that are inconsistent with the particular “buy-buy” or “sell-sell” strategy (thereby resulting in execution at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous). Rather than automatically execute, book or auction orders at prices inconsistent with the strategy, the Exchange will reject the orders back to the order entry firms.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal.
Because the foregoing 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 after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an e-mail to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-4026-DR), dated 09/03/2011.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/03/2011, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 128098 and for economic injury is 128108.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Issuance of Record of Decision.
This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR parts1500 to 1508) and TVA's procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. TVA has decided to adopt the preferred alternative in its final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Natural Resource Plan (NRP). The notice of availability of the
Charles P. Nicholson, NEPA Compliance Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499, telephone 865-632-3582 or e-mail
TVA is an agency and instrumentality of the United States, established by an act of Congress in 1933, to foster the social and economic welfare of the people of the Tennessee Valley region and to promote the proper use and conservation of the region's natural resources. TVA's threefold mission is to provide affordable and reliable power, promote sustainable economic development, and act as the steward of the Valley's natural resources. The lands managed by TVA in the name of the United States of America are some of the most important resources of the
From its inception through 1998, TVA received federal appropriations for its natural resource management activities. Since then, the Energy and Water Development Act of 1998 has required TVA to fund its “essential stewardship activities,” including natural resource management, with its revenues from the sale of power and other funds. The TVA Act requires the TVA power system to be self-supporting and operating on a nonprofit basis and directs TVA to sell power at rates as low as are feasible.
The TVA Environmental Policy adopted in 2008 established six strategic objectives and associated critical success factors. Three of these strategic objectives, Water Resource Protection and Improvement, Sustainable Land Use, and Natural Resource Management, are the focus of the NRP. The goals of the NRP are to: (1) Align TVA's natural resource stewardship programs and plans with the Environmental Policy; (2) provide a strategic plan that guides TVA's resource management decisions and actions, integrates stewardship objectives for optimum public benefits while developing efficiencies for natural resources, and strikes a balance between the competing and sometimes conflicting resource uses on TVA-managed lands; (3) increase the efficiency of environmental reviews of TVA actions; (4) provide TVA staff with a reference manual to guide implementation activities; and (5) provide clarity and transparency to the public. The NRP addresses current and proposed TVA programs and activities for the management of biological, cultural, and water resources, recreation, reservoir lands planning, and public engagement.
Four alternatives for TVA's management of natural resources were evaluated in the NRP EIS. These alternatives consist of different combinations and levels of implementation of resource management programs and activities and approaches to planning the use of TVA reservoir lands.
On June 15, 2009, TVA published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct a comprehensive study of its future energy and environmental stewardship needs known as the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP;
In addition to the public scoping, TVA directly solicited input from 11 federal and state natural resource agencies. TVA also used its Regional Resource Stewardship Council throughout the development of the NRP as an advisory and review group. TVA established the Council in 1999 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice to TVA on its stewardship activities.
The notice of availability of the draft NRP and EIS was published in the
Alternative C—Flagship Management is the environmentally preferred alternative. This alternative is comprised of the broadest range and highest levels of implementation of natural resource management programs and activities. Although this alternative would result in the greatest level of short-term adverse impacts caused by the various management activities, it would result in the greatest beneficial impacts and improved conditions for numerous resource areas.
The U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI) and USEPA commented on the final NRP and EIS. The USDOI continued to support Alternative C—Flagship Management for providing greater opportunities for natural resource management, recovery, and
On August 18, 2011, the TVA Board of Directors determined that the preferred Alternative D—Blended Management was in the best interest of TVA and approved its implementation. This decision was based on that alternative's alignment with TVA's Environmental Policy, its focus on certain key programs that establish a baseline for future enhanced implementation efforts, and the flexibility it provides for the use of partnerships, volunteers, and other sources of funding to leverage programs to their full potential while working within resource and staff constraints.
The natural resource management programs and activities associated with Alternative D have been designed to result in minimal adverse environmental impacts during their implementation and to result in long-term beneficial impacts. TVA will conduct site and/or activity-specific environmental reviews of its actions to implement the NRP and incorporate appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts. TVA has developed a programmatic agreement (PA) for the management of historic properties affected by the NRP. This PA was signed by TVA on July 29, 2011, and by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on August 5, 2011. The PA requires that TVA develop and implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan within three years. This plan will address both TVA's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act when implementing the various NRP activities and TVA's implementation of the cultural resource management programs and activities included in NRP Alternative D—Blended Management.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice and request for public comment.
The U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement (“SLA” or “the Agreement”) entered into force on October 12, 2006 and is currently scheduled to expire on October 12, 2013. The SLA includes a provision for extension of the Agreement for an additional two years. The United States is considering extending the SLA through October 12, 2015. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the possible extension of the Agreement.
To ensure consideration, comments should be submitted no later than 30 days after publication of the notice.
Comments should be submitted electronically via the Internet at
Mary Sullivan Smith, Director for Canada, (202) 395-9404, for questions concerning procedures for filing submissions in response to this notice.
As part of the SLA, the United States agreed to cease the collection of antidumping and countervailing duties upon softwood lumber from Canada and to refund US$5 billion in deposits of duties. In exchange, Canada agreed, among other things, to apply export measures—export charges and volume limitations—to shipments of softwood lumber from Canada to the United States when the price of softwood products falls below a certain level. The SLA provides for arbitration to resolve disputes between the United States and Canada regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Agreement. Under the SLA, arbitration is conducted under the rules of the LCIA.
Pursuant to Article XVIII “the SLA 2006 shall remain in force for 7 years after the Effective Date and may be extended by agreement of the Parties for an additional 2 years.” Without an extension, the Agreement will expire in October 12, 2013. USTR is considering extending the SLA for two years pursuant to the President's constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States, as delegated to the USTR from the President through Executive Orders, including Executive Order 11846 (Administration of the Trade Agreements Program). Request for Public Comment: The USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to the possible extension of the SLA 2006.
To submit comments via
The
Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection except confidential business information. Comments may be viewed on the
Persons wishing to submit business confidential information must certify in writing that such information is confidential and such information must be clearly marked “Business
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of Availability of SEA and FONSI.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code 4321-4347 (as amended), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, the FAA is announcing the availability of a SEA and FONSI for the FAA/AST to renew Launch Site Operator License (LSO-01-005) to SSI for the continued operation of the California Spaceport at VAFB, California. The SEA supplements the U.S. Air Force February 1995 EA for the California Spaceport (1995 EA) and was prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the FAA/AST's Proposed Action to renew SSI's Launch Site Operator License for the continued operation of the California Spaceport. The Launch Site Operator License would be valid for 5 years. The 1995 EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of a commercial launch facility (which is now the California Spaceport) at VAFB, California.
Activities addressed in the SEA include launches of a variety of vertically-launched launch vehicles (Minuteman and Castor 120 derivative boosters) at the California Spaceport over the 5-year term of the license. Since 1996 when FAA issued SSI its first Launch Site Operator License, SSI has supported eight commercial launches. Although the terms of the license do not specify the number of launches allowed, FAA selected a conservative value of up to 15 launches per year has been considered for the purposes of the SEA's environmental analysis. The largest launch vehicle proposed to launch from the California Spaceport is the Athena III, consisting of a two-stage Castor 120 solid-propellant rocket motor with the addition of up to six Castor IVA or Castor IVXL rocket motors strapped to the first stage.
The 1995 EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of construction and operation of a commercial launch facility (which is now the California Spaceport) at VAFB, California. The analysis considered operation of variety of vertical launch vehicles, including the Athena III. The proposed activities at the California Spaceport remain consistent with those analyzed in the 1995 EA and are incorporated by reference in the SEA. The SEA summarizes the data and environmental analysis presented in the 1995 EA where the data and analysis remains substantially valid. In addition, the SEA provides new data and analysis where information presented in the 1995 EA is outdated.
The resource areas considered in the SEA include air quality; biological resources (fish, wildlife, and plants); noise; land use (including coastal resources); historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources; Department of Transportation Section 4(f) Properties; geology and soils; hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste; health and safety; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and children's environmental health and safety; and water quality (including floodplains and wetlands). Potential cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action were also addressed in the SEA. Alternatives analyzed in the SEA included the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not renew the Launch Site Operator License to SSI for continued operation of the California Spaceport at VAFB. Existing USAF activities would continue at VAFB.
After careful and thorough consideration of available data and information on existing conditions and potential impacts, the FAA has determined that there will be no significant short-term, long-term, or cumulative impacts to the environment or surrounding populations from the renewal of the Launch Site Operator License for continued operations of the California Spaceport at VAFB. The Proposed Action is consistent with existing national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101 of NEPA and other applicable environmental requirements and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Action is not required and the FAA issued a FONSI.
The FAA has posted the SEA and FONSI on the Internet at
Mr. Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental Program Lead, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 325, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-5924;
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 17, 2011.
Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Ms. Deborah Mazyck at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W43-443, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is (202-366-4139).
The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act was amended by the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-519). The enacted Theft Act requires specified parts of high-theft vehicle to be marked with vehicle identification numbers. In a final rule published on April 6, 2004, the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard was extended to include all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, and to light duty trucks with major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of multipurpose passenger vehicles. Each major component part must be either labeled or affixed with the VIN and its replacement component part must be marked with the DOT symbol, the letter (R) and the manufacturers' logo. The final rule became effective September 1, 2006. Due to expansion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (Part 541), all passenger cars, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less, and light duty trucks with major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of multipurpose passenger vehicles, are required to be parts marked.
NHTSA estimates an hour burden of 550,339 hours and a cost burden of $108,790,000 million for Part 541.
The provision of the Part 565 regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to assign a unique VIN to each new vehicle and to inform NHTSA of the code used in forming the VIN. These regulations apply to all vehicles: Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles.
NHTSA has amended Part 565 to revise certain sections in order to extend the existing VIN system for another thirty years, and to ensure a sufficient supply of unique available VINs and manufacturer identifiers for that time period (73 FR 23367, April 30, 2008). The agency required information to be provided in a slightly different way (
Part 567 specifies the content and location of, and other requirements for, the certification label or tag to be affixed to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Specifically, the VIN is required to appear on the certification label. Additionally, this certificate will provide the consumer with information to assist him or her in determining which of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are applicable to the vehicle or equipment, and its date of manufacturer.
NHTSA estimates an hour burden of 247,708 hours and a cost burden of $13,348,000 for Parts 565 and 567.
(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of State (Secretary), the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (Center) that has been established in the Department of State by the Secretary shall coordinate, orient, and inform Government-wide public communications activities directed at audiences abroad and targeted against violent extremists and terrorist organizations, especially al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents, with the goal of using communication tools to reduce radicalization by terrorists and extremist violence and terrorism that threaten the interests and national security of the United States. Consistent with section 404o of title 50, United States Code, the Center shall coordinate its analysis, evaluation, and planning functions with the National Counterterrorism Center. The Center shall also coordinate these functions with other agencies, as appropriate.
(b) To achieve these objectives, the Center's functions shall include:
(c) The Secretary shall establish a Steering Committee composed of senior representatives of agencies relevant to the Center's mission to provide advice to the Secretary on the operations and strategic orientation of the Center and to ensure adequate support for the Center. The Steering Committee shall meet not less than every 6 months. The Steering Committee shall be chaired by the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. The Coordinator for Counterterrorism of the Department of State shall serve as Vice Chair. The Coordinator of the Center shall serve as Executive Secretary. The Steering Committee shall include one senior representative designated by the head of each of the following agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Treasury, the National Counterterrorism Center, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Counterterrorism Center of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Broadcast Board of Governors, and the Agency for International Development. Other agencies may be invited to participate in the Steering Committee at the discretion of the Chair.
(a) There is established within the Department of State, in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, a temporary organization to be known as the Counterterrorism Communications Support Office (CCSO).
(b) The purpose of the CCSO shall be to perform the specific project of supporting agencies in Government-wide public communications activities targeted against violent extremism and terrorist organizations, especially al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents, to audiences abroad by using communication tools designed to counter violent extremism and terrorism that threaten the interests and national security of the United States.
(c) In carrying out its purpose set forth in subsection (b) of this section, the CCSO shall:
(d) The CCSO shall be headed by a Director selected by the Secretary, with the advice of the Steering Committee. Its staff may include, as determined by the Secretary:(1) personnel with relevant expertise detailed on a non-reimbursable basis from other agencies; (2) senior and other technical advisers; and (3) such other personnel as the Secretary may direct to support the CCSO. To accomplish this mission, the heads of agencies participating on the Steering Committee shall provide to the CCSO, on a non-reimbursable basis, assistance, services, and other support including but not limited to logistical and administrative support and details of personnel. Non-reimbursable detailsshall be based on reasonable requests from the Secretary in light of the need for specificexpertise, and after consultation with the relevant agency, to the extent permitted by law.
(e) The CCSO shall terminate at the end of the maximum period permitted bysection 3161(a)(1) of title 5, United States Code, unless sooner terminated by theSecretary consistent with section 3161(a)(2) of such title.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to theavailability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantiveor procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, itsdepartments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Final Rules.
EPA and NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation, are each finalizing rules to establish a comprehensive Heavy-Duty National Program that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption for on-road heavy-duty vehicles, responding to the President's directive on May 21, 2010, to take coordinated steps to produce a new generation of clean vehicles. NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards and EPA's final carbon dioxide (CO
EPA's final greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act will begin with model year 2014. NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory with model year 2016 for most regulatory categories. Commercial trailers are not regulated in this phase of the Heavy-Duty National Program.
The agencies estimate that the combined standards will reduce CO
EPA is also finalizing provisions allowing light-duty vehicle manufacturers to use CO
These final rules are effective on November 14, 2011. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 14, 2011.
EPA and NHTSA have established dockets for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 and NHTSA-2010-0079, respectively. All documents in the docket are listed on the
NHTSA: Lily Smith, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. EPA: Lauren Steele, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division (ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-4788; fax number: (734) 214-4816; e-mail address:
This action affects companies that manufacture, sell, or import into the United States new heavy-duty engines and new Class 2b through 8 trucks, including combination tractors, school and transit buses, vocational vehicles such as utility service trucks, as well as
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely covered by these rules. This table lists the types of entities that the agencies are aware may be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities are regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in the referenced regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the persons listed in the preceding
EPA and NHTSA (“the agencies”) are announcing a first-ever program to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel consumption in the heavy-duty highway vehicle sector. This broad sector—ranging from large pickups to sleeper-cab tractors—together represent the second largest contributor to oil consumption and GHG emissions from the mobile source sector, after light-duty passenger cars and trucks. These are the second joint rules issued by the agencies, following on the April 1, 2010 standards to sharply reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption from MY 2012-2016 passenger cars and light trucks (published on May 7, 2010 at 75 FR 25324).
In a May 21, 2010 memorandum to the Administrators of EPA and NHTSA (and the Secretaries of Transportation and Energy), the President stated that “America has the opportunity to lead the world in the development of a new generation of clean cars and trucks through innovative technologies and manufacturing that will spur economic growth and create high-quality domestic jobs, enhance our energy security, and improve our environment.”
At the same time, the final program will enhance American competitiveness and job creation, benefit consumers and businesses by reducing costs for transporting goods, and spur growth in the clean energy sector.
The HD National Program the agencies are finalizing today reflects a collaborative effort between the agencies, a range of public interest nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the state of California and the regulated industry. At the time of the President's announcement, a number of major HD truck and engine manufacturers representing the vast majority of this industry, and the California Air Resources Board (California ARB), sent letters to EPA and NHTSA supporting the creation of a HD National Program based on a common set of principles. In the letters, the stakeholders committed to working with the agencies and with other stakeholders toward a program consistent with common principles, including:
Increased use of existing technologies to achieve significant GHG emissions and fuel consumption reductions;
A program that starts in 2014 and is fully phased in by 2018;
A program that works towards harmonization of methods for determining a vehicle's GHG and fuel efficiency, recognizing the global nature of the issues and the industry;
Standards that recognize the commercial needs of the trucking industry; and
Incentives leading to the early introduction of advanced technologies.
The final rules adopted today reflect these principles. The final HD National Program also builds on many years of heavy-duty engine and vehicle technology development to achieve what the agencies believe is the greatest degree of fuel consumption and GHG emission reduction appropriate, technologically and economically feasible, and cost-effective for model years 2014-2018. In addition to taking aggressive steps that are reasonably possible now, based on the technological opportunities and pathways that present themselves during these model years, the agencies and industry will also continue learning about emerging opportunities for this complex sector to further reduce fuel consumption and GHG emission through future regulatory steps.
Similarly, the agencies will participate in efforts to improve our ability to accurately characterize the actual in-use fuel consumption and emissions of this complex sector. As technologies progress in the coming years and as the agencies improve the regulatory tools to evaluate real world vehicle performance, we expect that we will develop a second phase of regulations to reinforce these initial rules and achieve further reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption reduction for the mid- and longer-term time frame (beyond 2018). The agencies are committed to working with all interested stakeholders in this effort and to the extent possible working towards alignment with similar programs being developed in Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and Japan. In doing so, we will continue to evaluate many of the structural and technical decisions we are making in today's final action in the context of new technologies and the new regulatory tools that we expect to realize in the future.
The regulatory program we are finalizing today is largely unchanged from the proposal the agencies made on November 30, 2010 (
Heavy-duty vehicles move much of the nation's freight and carry out numerous other tasks, including utility work, concrete delivery, fire response, refuse collection, and many more. Heavy-duty vehicles are primarily powered by diesel engines, although about 37 percent of these vehicles are powered by gasoline engines.
The heavy-duty sector is extremely diverse in several respects, including types of manufacturing companies involved, the range of sizes of trucks and engines they produce, the types of work the trucks are designed to perform, and the regulatory history of different subcategories of vehicles and engines. The current heavy-duty fleet encompasses vehicles from the “18-wheeler” combination tractors one sees on the highway to school and transit buses, to vocational vehicles such as utility service trucks, as well as the largest pickup trucks and vans.
For purposes of this preamble, the term “heavy-duty” or “HD” is used to apply to all highway vehicles and engines that are not within the range of light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPV) covered by the GHG and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards issued for MY 2012-2016.
The agencies proposed to cover all segments of the heavy-duty category above, except with respect to recreational vehicles (RVs or motor homes). We note that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires NHTSA to set standards for “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks.”
Oshkosh Corporation commented that this interpretation did not match the statutory definition of the term in EISA, which defines “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle” by weight only,
NHTSA has considered Oshkosh's comment and reconsidered its interpretation that effectively read words into the statutory definition. Given the very wide variety of vehicles contained in the HD fleet, reading those words into the definition and thereby excluding certain types of vehicles could create illogical results,
Setting fuel consumption standards for the heavy-duty sector, pursuant to NHTSA's EISA authority, will also improve our energy and national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which has been a national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s. Net petroleum imports now account for approximately 49-51 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is highly concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price shocks as the recent unrest in North Africa and the Persian Gulf highlights. Recently, oil prices have been over $100 per barrel, gasoline and diesel fuel prices in excess of $4 per gallon, causing financial hardship for many families and businesses. The export of U.S. assets in exchange for oil imports continues to be an important component of the historically unprecedented U.S. trade deficits. Transportation accounts for about 72 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty vehicles account for about 17 percent of transportation oil use, which means that they alone account for about 12 percent of all U.S. oil consumption.
Setting GHG emissions standards for the heavy-duty sector will help to ameliorate climate change. The EPA Administrator found after a thorough examination of the scientific evidence on the causes and impact of current and future climate change, and careful review of public comments, that the science compellingly supports a positive finding that atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases taken in combination result in air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger both public health and welfare and that the combined emissions of these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and engines contributes to the greenhouse gas air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. In her finding, the Administrator carefully studied and relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from the recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009. As summarized in the Technical Support Document for EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are very likely (a 90 to 99 percent probability) the cause of most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.
In developing this HD National program, the agencies have worked with a large and diverse group of stakeholders representing truck and engine manufacturers, trucking fleets, environmental organizations, and states including the State of California.
In light of the industry's diversity, and consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) as discussed further below, the agencies are adopting a HD National Program that recognizes the different sizes and work requirements of this wide range of heavy-duty vehicles and their engines. NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards and EPA's final GHG standards apply to manufacturers of the following types of heavy-duty vehicles and their engines; the final provisions for each of these are described in more detail below in this section:
• Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans.
• Combination Tractors.
• Vocational Vehicles.
As in the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, EPA's and NHTSA's final standards for the heavy-duty sector are largely harmonized with one another due to the close and direct relationship between improving the fuel efficiency of these vehicles and reducing their CO
This program is based on standards for direct exhaust emissions from engines and vehicles. In characterizing the overall emissions impacts, benefits and costs of the program, analyses of air pollutant emissions from upstream sources have been conducted. In this action, the agencies use the term upstream to include emissions from the production and distribution of fuel. A summary of the analysis of upstream emissions can be found in Section VI.C of this preamble, and further details are available in Chapter 5 of the RIA.
The timelines for the implementation of the final NHTSA and EPA standards are also closely coordinated. EPA's final GHG emission standards will begin in model year 2014. In order to provide for the four full model years of regulatory lead time required by EISA, as discussed in Section 0 below, NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards will be voluntary in model years 2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory in model year 2016, except for diesel engine standards which will be voluntary in model years 2014, 2015 and 2016, becoming mandatory in model year 2017. Both agencies are also allowing for early compliance in model year 2013. A detailed discussion of how the final standards are consistent with each agency's respective statutory requirements and authorities is found later in this preamble.
Allison Transmission stated that sufficient time must be taken before issuing the final rules in order to ensure that the standards are supportable. As explained in Sections II and III below, as well as in the RIA, the agencies believe there is sufficient lead time to meet all of the standards adopted in today's rules. For those areas for which the agencies have determined that insufficient time is available to develop appropriate standards, such as for trailers, the agencies are not including regulations as part of this initial program.
NHTSA received several comments related to the timing of the implementation of its fuel consumption standards. The Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), The Volvo Group (Volvo), and Navistar argued that the timing of NHTSA's standards violated the lead time requirement of 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(A), which states that standards under the new medium- and heavy-duty program shall have “not less than 4 full model years of regulatory lead-time.” The commenters seemed to interpret the voluntary program as the imposition of regulation upon industry. NADA described NHTSA's standards during the voluntary period as “mandates.”
NHTSA has reviewed this issue and believes that the regulatory schedule is consistent with the lead time requirement of Section 32902(k)(3). To clarify, NHTSA will not be imposing a mandatory regulatory program until 2016, and none of the voluntary standards will be “mandates.” As described in later sections, the voluntary standards would only apply to a manufacturer if it makes the voluntary and affirmative choice to opt-in to the program.
EMA, NADA, and Navistar also argued that the proposed standards would violate the stability requirement of 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(3)(B), which states that they shall have “not less than 3 full model years of regulatory stability.” EMA stated that since there are HD emission standards taking effect in 2013, the 2014 implementation date for this rule would violate the stability requirements. NADA argued that the MY 2014-2017/2018 phase-in period was inadequate to fulfill the stability requirement.
Congress has not spoken directly to the meaning of the words “regulatory stability.” NHTSA believes that the “regulatory stability” requirement exists to ensure that manufacturers will not be subject to new standards in repeated rulemakings too rapidly, given that Congress did not include a minimum duration period for the MD/HD standards.
As laid out in Section II below, NHTSA's final standards follow different phase-in schedules based on differences between the regulatory categories. Consistent with NHTSA's statutory obligation to implement a program designed to achieve the maximum feasible fuel efficiency improvement, the standards increase in stringency based upon increasing fleet penetration rates for the available technologies. The NPRM proposed phase-in schedules aligned with EPA's,
Each standard, associated phase-in schedule, and alternative standard implemented by this final rule was noticed in the NPRM. Those fuel consumption standards that become mandatory in 2017 will remain in effect through at least 2019. This further ensures that the fuel consumption standards in this rule will remain in effect for at least three years, providing the statutorily-mandated three full years of regulatory stability, and ensuring that manufacturers will not be subject to new or amended standards too rapidly. (The greenhouse gas emission standards remain in effect unless and until amended in all later model years in any case.) Therefore, NHTSA believes the commenters' concern about regulatory stability is addressed in the structure of the rule.
Neither EPA nor NHTSA is adopting standards at this time for GHG emissions or fuel consumption, respectively, for heavy-duty commercial trailers or for vehicles or engines manufactured by small businesses. The agencies recognize that aerodynamic and tire rolling resistance improvements to trailers represent a significant opportunity to reduce fuel consumption and GHGs as evidenced, among other things, by the work of the EPA SmartWay program. While we are deferring action today on setting trailer standards, the agencies are committed to moving forward to create a regulatory program for trailers that would complement the current vehicle program. See Section IX for more details on the agencies' decisions regarding trailers, and Sections II and XII for more details on the agencies' decisions regarding small businesses.
The agencies have analyzed in detail the projected costs, fuel savings, and benefits of the final GHG and fuel consumption standards. Table I-1 shows estimated lifetime discounted program costs (including technological outlays), fuel savings, and benefits for all heavy-duty vehicles projected to be sold in model years 2014-2018 over these vehicles' lives. Section I.D includes additional information about this analysis.
The standards that are being adopted in this notice represent the first time that NHTSA and EPA are regulating the heavy-duty sector for fuel consumption and GHG emissions, respectively. The HD National Program is rooted in EPA's prior regulatory history, the SmartWay® Transport Partnership program, and extensive technical and engineering analyses done at the federal level. This section summarizes some of the most important of these precursors and foundations for this HD National Program.
Since the 1980s, EPA has acted several times to address tailpipe emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxics from heavy-duty vehicles and engines. During the last 18 years, these programs have primarily addressed emissions of particulate matter (PM) and the primary ozone precursors, hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
EPA's overall program goal has always been to achieve emissions reductions from the complete vehicles that operate on our roads. The agency has often accomplished this goal for many heavy-duty truck categories through the regulation of heavy-duty engine emissions. A key part of this success has been the development over many years of a well-established, representative, and robust set of engine
With the passage of the EISA in December 2007, Congress laid out a framework developing the first fuel efficiency regulations for HD vehicles. As codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), EISA requires NHTSA to develop a regulatory system for the fuel efficiency of commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks in three steps: a study by NAS, a study by NHTSA,
Specifically, section 102 of EISA, codified at 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), states that not later than two years after completion of the NHTSA study, DOT (by delegation, NHTSA), in consultation with the Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA, shall develop a regulation to implement a “commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement.” NHTSA interprets the timing requirements as permitting a regulation to be developed earlier, rather than as requiring the agency to wait a specified period of time.
Congress specified that as part of the “HD fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement,” NHTSA must adopt and implement:
Appropriate test methods;
Measurement metrics;
Fuel economy standards;
Compliance and enforcement protocols.
Congress emphasized that the test methods, measurement metrics, standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols must all be appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks. NHTSA notes that these criteria are different from the “four factors” of 49 U.S.C. 32902(f)
Congress also stated that NHTSA may set separate standards for different classes of HD vehicles, which the agency interprets broadly to allow regulation of HD engines in addition to HD vehicles, and provided requirements new to 49 U.S.C. 32902 in terms of timing of regulations, stating that the standards adopted as a result of the agency's rulemaking shall provide not less than four full model years of regulatory lead time, and three full model years of regulatory stability.
In April 2010 as mandated by Congress in EISA, the National Research Council (NRC) under NAS issued a report to NHTSA and to Congress evaluating medium-duty and heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency improvement opportunities, titled “Technologies and Approaches to Reducing the Fuel Consumption of Medium- and Heavy-duty Vehicles.”
The NAS report is far reaching in its review of the technologies that are available and which may become available in the future to reduce fuel consumption from medium and heavy-duty vehicles. In presenting the full range of technical opportunities the report includes technologies which may not be available until 2020 or even further into the future. As such, the report provides not only a valuable list of off the shelf technologies from which the agencies have drawn in developing this near-term 2014-2018 program consistent with statutory authorities and with the set of principles set forth by the President, but the report also provides a road map the agencies can use as we look to develop future regulations for this sector. A review of the technologies in the NAS report makes clear that there are not only many technologies readily available today to achieve important reductions in fuel consumption, like the ones we used in developing the 2014-2018 program, but there are also great opportunities for even larger reductions in the future through the development of advanced hybrid drive systems and sophisticated engine technologies such as Rankine waste heat recovery. The agencies will again make extensive use of this report when we move forward to develop the next phase of regulations for medium and heavy-duty vehicles.
Allison Transmission commented that NHTSA (implicitly, both agencies) had improperly relied on the NAS report and failed to do sufficient independent analysis, which Allison claimed did not meet the statutory obligation to provide an adequate basis for the rule. First, an agency does not improperly delegate its authority or judgment merely by using work performed by outside parties as the factual basis for its decision making.
On May 7, 2010, EPA and NHTSA finalized the first-ever National Program for light-duty cars and trucks, which set GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for model years 2012-2016 (
Due to the diversity of the remaining HD vehicles, there are fewer parallels with the structure of the light-duty program. However, the agencies have maintained the same collaboration and coordination that characterized the development of the light-duty program. Most notably, as with the light-duty program, manufacturers will be able to design and build vehicles to meet a closely coordinated, harmonized national program, and avoid unnecessarily duplicative testing and compliance burdens.
EPA's voluntary SmartWay Transport Partnership program encourages shipping and trucking companies to take actions that reduce fuel consumption and CO
In developing this HD National Program, the agencies have drawn from the SmartWay experience, as discussed in detail both in Sections II and III below (
In addition to identifying technologies, the SmartWay program includes operational approaches that truck fleet owners as well as individual drivers and their freight customers can incorporate, that the NHTSA and EPA believe will complement the final standards. These include such approaches as improved logistics and driver training, as discussed in the RIA. This approach is consistent with the one of the three alternative approaches that the NAS recommended be considered. The three approaches were raising fuel taxes, relaxing truck size and weight restrictions, and encouraging incentives to disseminate information to inform truck drivers about the relationship between driving behavior and fuel savings. Taxes and truck size and weight limits are mandated by public law; as such, these options are outside EPA's and NHTSA's authority to implement. However, complementary operational measures like driver training, which SmartWay does promote, can complement the final standards and also provide benefits for the existing truck fleet, furthering the public policy objectives of addressing energy security and climate change.
The Government of Canada's Department of the Environment (Environment Canada) assisted EPA's development of this rulemaking by conducting emissions testing of heavy-duty vehicles at their test facilities to gather data on a range of possible test cycles, and to evaluate the impact of certain emissions reduction technologies. Environment Canada also facilitated the evaluation of heavy-duty vehicle aerodynamic properties at Canada's National Research Council wind tunnel, and during coastdown testing.
We expect the technical collaboration with Environment Canada to continue as we implement testing and compliance verification procedures for this rulemaking. We may also begin to develop a knowledge base enabling improvement upon this regulatory framework for model years beyond 2018 (for example, improvements to the means of demonstrating compliance). We also expect to continue our collaboration with Environment Canada on compliance issues.
Collaboration with Environment Canada is taking place under the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Committee.
When EPA first addressed emissions from heavy-duty trucks in the 1980s, it established standards for engines, based on the amount of work performed (grams of pollutant per unit of work, expressed as grams per brake horsepower-hour or g/bhp-hr).
Addressing GHG emissions and fuel consumption from heavy-duty trucks, however, requires a different approach. Reducing GHG emissions and fuel consumption requires increasing the inherent efficiency of the engine as well as making changes to the vehicles to reduce the amount of work demanded from the engine in order to move the truck down the road. A focus on the entire vehicle is thus required. For example, in addition to the basic emissions and fuel consumption levels of the engine, the aerodynamics of the vehicle can have a major impact on the amount of work that must be performed to transport freight at common highway speeds. For this first rulemaking, the agencies proposed a complementary engine and vehicle approach in order to achieve the maximum feasible near-term reductions.
NHTSA received comments on the proposal to create complementary engine and vehicle standards. Volvo and Daimler argued that EISA limited NHTSA's authority to the regulation of completed vehicles and did not give NHTSA authority to regulate engines. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) grants NHTSA broad authority to regulate this sector, stating simply that the Secretary “shall determine in a rulemaking proceeding how to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement,” considering appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and technological feasibility. NHTSA does not believe that this language precludes the regulation of engines, but rather explicitly leaves the regulatory approach to the agency's expertise and discretion.
As described elsewhere in this preamble, the final standards under the HD National Program address the complete vehicle, to the extent practicable and appropriate under the agencies' respective statutory authorities, through complementary engine and vehicle standards. The agencies continue to believe that this complementary engine and vehicle approach is the best way to achieve near term reductions from the heavy-duty sector. However, we also recognize as did the NAS committee and a wide range of industry and environmental commenters, that in order to fully capture the multi-faceted synergistic aspects of engine and vehicle design a more comprehensive complete vehicle standard may be appropriate in the future. The agencies are committed to fully exploring such a possibility and to developing the testing and modeling tools necessary to enable such a regulatory approach. We intend to work with all interested stakeholders as we move forward.
The heavy-duty truck sector spans a wide range of vehicles with often unique form and function. A primary indicator of the extreme diversity among heavy-duty trucks is the range of load-carrying capability across the industry. The heavy-duty truck sector is often subdivided by vehicle weight classifications, as defined by the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), which is a measure of the combined curb (empty) weight and cargo carrying capacity of the truck.
In the framework of these vehicle weight classifications, the heavy-duty truck sector refers to Class 2b through Class 8 vehicles and the engines that power those vehicles.
EPA and NHTSA have designed our respective standards in careful consideration of the diversity and complexity of the heavy-duty truck industry, as discussed next.
As described above, NHTSA and EPA recognize the importance of addressing the entire vehicle in reducing fuel consumption and GHG emissions. At the same time, the agencies understand that the complexity of the industry means that we will need to use different approaches to achieve this goal, depending on the characteristics of each general type of truck. We are therefore dividing the industry into three discrete regulatory categories for purposes of setting our respective standards—combination tractors, heavy-duty pickups and vans, and vocational vehicles—based on the relative degree of homogeneity among trucks within each category. For each regulatory category, the agencies are adopting related but distinct program approaches reflecting the specific challenges that we see in these segments. In the following paragraphs, we discuss EPA's final GHG emission standards and NHTSA's final fuel consumption standards for the three regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles and their engines.
The agencies are adopting test metrics that express fuel consumption and GHG emissions relative to the most important measures of heavy-duty truck utility for each segment, consistent with the recommendation of the 2010 NAS Report that metrics should reflect and account for the work performed by various types of HD vehicles. This approach differs from NHTSA's light-duty program that uses fuel economy as the basis. The NAS committee discussed the difference between fuel economy (a measure of how far a vehicle will go on a gallon of fuel) and fuel consumption (the inverse measure, of how much fuel is consumed in driving a given distance) as potential metrics for MD/HD regulations. The committee concluded that fuel economy would not be a good metric for judging the fuel efficiency of a heavy-duty vehicle, and stated that NHTSA should instead consider fuel consumption as the metric for its standards. As a result, for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, EPA and NHTSA are finalizing standards on a per-mile basis (g/mile for the EPA standards, gallons/100 miles for the NHTSA standards), as explained in Section 0 below. For heavy-duty trucks, both combination and vocational, the agencies are adopting standards expressed in terms of the key measure of freight movement, tons of payload miles or, more simply, ton-miles. Hence, for EPA the final standards are in the form of the mass of emissions from carrying a ton of cargo over a distance of one mile (g/ton-mi). Similarly, the final NHTSA standards are in terms of gallons of fuel consumed over a set distance (one thousand miles), or gal/1,000 ton-mile. Finally, for engines, EPA is adopting standards in the form of grams of emissions per unit of work (g/bhp-hr), the same metric used for the heavy-duty highway engine standards for criteria pollutants today. Similarly, NHTSA is finalizing standards for heavy-duty engines in the form of gallons of fuel consumption per 100 units of work (gal/100 bhp-hr).
Section II below discusses the final EPA and NHTSA standards in greater detail.
Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and their engines contribute the largest portion of the total GHG emissions and fuel consumption of the heavy-duty sector, approximately 65 percent, due to their large payloads, their high annual miles traveled, and their major role in national freight transport.
In general, the heavy-duty combination tractor industry consists of tractor manufacturers (which manufacture the tractor and purchase and install the engine) and trailer manufacturers. These manufacturers are usually not the same entity. We are not aware of any manufacturer that typically assembles both the finished truck and the trailer and introduces the combination into commerce for sale to a buyer. The owners of trucks and trailers are often distinct as well. A typical truck buyer will purchase only the tractor. The trailers are usually purchased and owned by fleets and shippers. This occurs in part because trucking fleets on average maintain 3 trailers per tractor and in some cases as many as 6 or more trailers per tractor. There are also large differences in the kinds of manufacturers involved with producing tractors and trailers. For HD highway tractors and their engines, a relatively limited number of manufacturers produce the vast majority of these products. The trailer manufacturing industry is quite different, and includes a large number of companies, many of which are relatively small in size and production volume. Setting standards for the products involved—tractors and trailers—requires recognition of the large differences between these manufacturing industries, which can then warrant consideration of different regulatory approaches.
Based on these industry characteristics, EPA and NHTSA believe that the most straightforward regulatory approach for combination tractors and trailers is to establish standards for tractors separately from trailers. As discussed below in Section IX, the agencies are adopting standards for the tractors and their engines in this rulemaking, but did not propose and are not adopting standards for trailers.
As with the other regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA have concluded that achieving reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption from combination tractors requires addressing both the cab and the engine, and EPA and NHTSA each are adopting standards that reflect this conclusion. The importance of the cab is that its design determines the amount of power that the engine must produce in moving the truck down the road. As illustrated in Figure I-1, the loads that require additional power from the engine include air resistance (aerodynamics), tire rolling resistance,
Accordingly, for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, the agencies are each finalizing two sets of standards. For vehicle-related emissions and fuel consumption, tractor manufacturers are required to meet vehicle-based standards. Compliance with the vehicle standard will typically be determined based on a customized vehicle simulation model, called the Greenhouse gas Emissions Model (GEM), which is consistent with the NAS Report recommendations to require compliance testing for combination tractors using vehicle simulation rather than chassis dynamometer testing. This compliance model was developed by EPA specifically for this final action. It is an accurate and cost-effective alternative to measuring emissions and fuel consumption while operating the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer. Instead of using a chassis dynamometer as an indirect way to evaluate real-world operation and performance, various characteristics of the vehicle are measured and these measurements are used as inputs to the model. These characteristics relate to key technologies appropriate for this subcategory of truck—including aerodynamic features, weight reductions, tire rolling resistance, the presence of idle-reducing technology, and vehicle speed limiters. The model also assumes the use of a representative typical engine, rather than a vehicle-specific engine, because engines are regulated separately. Using these inputs, the model will be used to quantify the overall performance of the vehicle in terms of CO
The vehicle standards that EPA and NHTSA are adopting for Class 7 and 8 combination tractor manufacturers are based on several key attributes related to GHG emissions and fuel consumption that we believe reasonably represent the many differences in utility and performance among these vehicles. The final standards differ depending on GVWR (
Thus, the agencies have created nine subcategories within the Class 7 and 8 combination tractor category based on the differences in expected emissions and fuel consumption associated with the key attributes of GVWR, cab type, and roof height. The agencies are setting standards beginning in 2014 model year with more stringent standards following in 2017 model year. Table I-3 presents the agencies' respective standards for combination tractor manufacturers for the 2017 model year. The standards represent an overall fuel consumption and CO
As proposed, the agencies are exempting certain types of tractors which operate off-road to be exempt
In addition, the agencies are finalizing separate performance standards for the engines manufactured for use in these trucks. EPA's engine-based CO
Separately, EPA is adopting standards for combination tractors that apply in use. EPA is also finalizing engine-based N
As with the other categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA are finalizing respective standards that will apply to Class 7 and 8 tractors at the time of production (as in Table I-3, above). In addition, EPA is finalizing separate standards that will apply for a specified period of time in use. All of the standards for these vehicles, as well as details about the provisions for certification and implementation of these standards, are discussed in more detail in Sections II, III, IV, and V below and in the RIA.
In addition to the final EPA tractor- and engine-based standards for CO
Because the interior volume to be cooled for most tractor cabins is similar to that of light-duty vehicles, the size and design of current tractor A/C systems is also very similar. The compliance approach for Class 7 and 8 tractors is therefore similar to that in the light-duty rule in that these standards are design-based. Manufacturers will choose technologies from a menu of leak-reducing technologies sufficient to comply with the standard, as opposed to using a test to measure performance.
However, the final heavy-duty A/C provisions differ in two important ways from those established in the light-duty rule. First, the light-duty provisions were established as voluntary ways to
Finally, the agencies did not propose and are not adopting an A/C system efficiency standard in this heavy-duty rulemaking, although an efficiency credit was a part of the light-duty rule. The much larger emissions of CO
A more detailed discussion of A/C related issues is found in Section II.E.5 of this preamble.
Heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR between 8,501 and 10,000 lb are classified in the industry as Class 2b motor vehicles per the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration definition. As discussed above, Class 2b includes MDPVs that are regulated by the agencies under the light-duty vehicle rule, and the agencies are not adopting additional requirements for MDPVs in this rulemaking. Heavy-duty vehicles with GVWR between 10,001 and 14,000 lb are classified as Class 3 motor vehicles. Class 2b and Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles (referred to in these rules as “HD pickups and vans”) together emit about 15 percent of today's GHG emissions from the heavy-duty vehicle sector.
About 90 percent of HD pickups and vans are
For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to adopt GHG standards for HD pickups and vans based on the whole vehicle (including the engine), expressed as grams per mile, consistent with the way these vehicles are regulated by EPA today for criteria pollutants. NHTSA believes it is appropriate to adopt corresponding gallons per 100 mile fuel consumption standards that are likewise based on the whole vehicle. This complete vehicle approach being adopted by both agencies for HD pickups and vans is consistent with the recommendations of the NAS Committee in their 2010 Report. EPA and NHTSA also believe that the structure and many of the detailed provisions of the recently finalized light-duty GHG and fuel economy program, which also involves vehicle-based standards, are appropriate for the HD pickup and van GHG and fuel consumption standards as well, and this is reflected in the standards each agency is finalizing, as detailed in Section II.C. These commonalities include a new vehicle fleet average standard for each manufacturer in each model year and the determination of these fleet average standards based on production volume-weighted targets for each model, with the targets varying based on a defined vehicle attribute. Vehicle testing will be conducted on chassis dynamometers using the drive cycles from the EPA Federal Test Procedure (Light-duty FTP or “city” test) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET or “highway” test).
For the light-duty GHG and fuel economy standards, the agencies factored in vehicle size by basing the emissions and fuel economy targets on vehicle footprint (the wheelbase times the average track width).
As proposed, the agencies are adopting provisions such that each manufacturer's fleet average standard will be based on production volume-weighting of target standards for all vehicles that in turn are based on each vehicle's work factor. These target standards are taken from a set of curves (mathematical functions), presented in Section II.C below and in § 1037.104. EPA is also phasing in the CO
NHTSA is allowing manufacturers to select one of two fuel consumption standard alternatives for model years 2016 and later. The first alternative defines individual gasoline vehicle and diesel vehicle fuel consumption target curves that will not change for model years 2016-2018, and are equivalent to EPA's 67-67-67-100 percent target curves in model years 2016-2017-2018-2019, respectively. The target curves for this alternative are presented in Section II.C. The second alternative uses target curves that are equivalent to the EPA's 40-60-100 percent target curves in model years 2016-2017-2018, respectively. Stringency for the alternatives has been selected to allow a manufacturer, through the use of the credit and deficit carry-forward provisions that the agencies are also finalizing, to rely on the same product plans to satisfy either of these two alternatives, and also EPA requirements. If a manufacturer cannot meet an applicable standard in a given model year, it may make up its shortfall by overcomplying in a subsequent year, called reconciling a credit deficit. NHTSA is also allowing manufacturers to voluntarily opt into the NHTSA HD pickup and van program in model years 2014 or 2015. For these model years, NHTSA's fuel consumption target curves are equivalent to EPA's target curves.
The agencies received a number of comments including from the Senate authors and supporters of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act suggesting that the standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans should be made more stringent for gasoline vehicles and that the phase-in timing of the standards should be accelerated to the 2016 model year (from 2018). We also received comments arguing that the proposed standards were aggressive and could only be met given the phase-in schedules proposed by the agencies. In response to these comments, we reviewed again the technology assessments from the 2010 NAS report, our own joint light-duty 2012-2016 rulemaking, and information provided by the commenters relevant to the stringency of these standards. After reviewing all of the information, we continue to conclude that the proposed standards and associated phase-in schedules represent technically stringent but reasonable standards considering the available lead time and costs to bring the necessary technologies to market and our own assessments of the efficacy of the technologies when applied to heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans. Further detail on the feasibility of the standards and the agencies' choices among alternative standards is found in Section III.C below.
The Senate authors and supporters of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act sent a letter to the agencies encouraging the agencies to finalize a fuel economy labeling requirement for heavy-duty pickups and vans.
The form and stringency of the EPA and NHTSA standards curves are based on a set of vehicle, engine, and transmission technologies expected to be used to meet the recently established GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for model year 2012-2016 light-duty vehicles, with full consideration of how these technologies are likely to perform in heavy-duty vehicle testing and use. All of these technologies are already in use or have been announced for upcoming model years in some light-duty vehicle models, and some are in use in a portion of HD pickups and vans as well. The technologies include:
• Advanced 8-speed automatic transmissions.
• Aerodynamic improvements.
• Electro-hydraulic power steering.
• Engine friction reductions.
• Improved accessories.
• Low friction lubricants in powertrain components.
• Lower rolling resistance tires.
• Lightweighting.
• Gasoline direct injection.
• Diesel aftertreatment optimization.
• Air conditioning system leakage reduction (for EPA program only).
See Section III.B for a detailed analysis of these and other potential technologies, including their feasibility, costs, and effectiveness when employed for reducing fuel consumption and CO
A relatively small number of HD pickups and vans are sold by vehicle manufacturers as incomplete vehicles, without the primary load-carrying
In addition to the EPA CO
Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles consist of a wide variety of vehicle types. Some of the primary applications for vehicles in this segment include delivery, refuse, utility, dump, and cement trucks; transit, shuttle, and school buses; emergency vehicles, motor homes,
Manufacturing of vehicles in this segment of the industry is organized in a more complex way than that of the other heavy-duty categories. Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles are often built as a chassis with an installed engine and an installed transmission. Both the engine and transmissions are typically manufactured by other manufacturers and the chassis manufacturer purchases and installs them. Many of the same companies that build Class 7 and 8 tractors are also in the Class 2b-8 chassis manufacturing market. The chassis is typically then sent to a body manufacturer, which completes the vehicle by installing the appropriate feature—such as dump bed, delivery box, or utility bucket—onto the chassis. Vehicle body manufacturers tend to be small businesses that specialize in specific types of bodies or specialized features.
EPA and NHTSA proposed that in this vocational vehicle category the proposed GHG and fuel consumption standards apply to chassis manufacturers. Chassis manufacturers play a central role in the manufacturing process. The product they produce—the chassis with engine and transmission—includes the primary technologies that affect GHG emissions and fuel consumption. They also constitute a much more limited group of manufacturers for purposes of developing and implementing a regulatory program. The agencies believe that a focus on the body manufacturers would be much less practical, since they represent a much more diverse set of manufacturers, many of whom are small businesses. Further, the part of the vehicle that they add affords very few opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and fuel consumption (given the limited role that aerodynamics plays in many types of lower speed and stop-and-go operation typically found with vocational vehicles.) Therefore, the agencies proposed that the standards in this vocational vehicle category would apply to the chassis manufacturers of all heavy-duty vehicles not otherwise covered by the HD pickup and van standards or Class 7 and 8 combination tractor standards discussed above. The agencies requested comment on the proposed focus on chassis manufacturers.
Volvo and Daimler commented that the EISA does not speak to the regulation of subsystems, such as engines or incomplete vehicles, and argued that on the other hand, Section 32902(k)(2) prescribes the regulation of vehicles. Volvo further stated that precedent for the regulation of complete vehicles exists in the light-duty fuel economy rule. As noted above, NHTSA does not believe that EISA mandates a particular regulatory approach, but rather gives the agency wide latitude and explicitly leaves that determination to the agency. NHTSA also notes that its heavy-duty rule creates a new fuel efficiency program for which the light-duty program does not necessarily serve as a useful precedent for considerations of its structure. Unlike the light-duty fuel economy program, MD/HD vehicles are produced in widely diverse stages. Further, given the MD/HD market structure, where the complete vehicle manufacturers are numerous, diverse, and often small businesses, the regulation of complete vehicles would create unique difficulties for the application of appropriate and feasible technologies. These same considerations justify EPA's determination, pursuant to CAA section 202 (a), to regulate only chassis manufacturers in this first stage of GHG rules for the heavy-duty sector. NHTSA also notes that this rule does not represent the first time that the agency has regulated incomplete vehicles. Rather, incomplete vehicles have a history of regulation under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
The agencies continue to believe that regulation of the chassis manufacturers for this vocational vehicle category will achieve the maximum feasible improvement in fuel efficiency for purposes of EISA and appropriate emissions reductions for purposes of the CAA. Therefore, consistent with our proposal the final standards in this vocational vehicle category apply to the chassis manufacturers of all heavy-duty vehicles not otherwise covered by the HD pickup and van standards or Class 7 and 8 combination tractor standards discussed above. As discussed above, EPA and NHTSA have concluded that reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption require addressing both the vehicle and the engine. As discussed above for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, the agencies are each finalizing two sets of standards for Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles. For vehicle-related emissions and fuel consumption, the agencies are adopting standards for chassis manufacturers: EPA CO
Based on our analysis and research, the agencies believe that the primary opportunity for reductions in vocational vehicle GHG emissions and fuel consumption will be through improved engine technologies and improved tire rolling resistance. For engines, EPA and NHTSA are adopting separate standards for the manufacturers of engines used in Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles (the same approach as for combination tractors and engines intended for use in those tractors). EPA's final engine-based CO
The agencies are also finalizing an interim alternative compression ignition (diesel) engine standard for model years 2014-2016, again analogous to the alternative standards for compression ignition engines use in combination tractors. The need for this provision and our considerations in adopting it are the same for the engines used in vocational vehicles as for the engines used in combination tractors. As we proposed, these alternative standards will only be available through model year 2016. In addition, manufacturers that use the interim alternative diesel engine standards for model years 2014-2016 under the EPA program must use equivalent fuel consumption standards under the NHTSA program.
For the 2014 to 2016 model years, manufacturers may also choose to meet alternative engine standards that are phased-in over the model years to coincide with new EPA On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) requirements applicable for these same model years. See Sections II.B and II.D below.
The agencies received a significant number of comments including from the Senate authors and supporters of the Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act arguing that our proposed standards for vocational vehicles did not reflect all of the technologies identified in the 2010 NAS report. The commenters encouraged the agencies to expand the program to bring in additional reductions through the use of new transmission technologies, vehicle weight reductions and hybrid drivetrains. In general, the agencies agree with the commenters' central contention that there are additional technologies to improve the fuel efficiency of vocational vehicles. As discussed later, we are finalizing provisions to allow new technologies to be brought into the program through the innovative technology credit program. More specifically, we are including provisions to account for and credit the use of hybrid technology as a technology that can reduce emissions and fuel consumption. Hybrid technology can currently be a cost-effective technology in certain specific vocational applications, and the agencies want to recognize and promote the use of this technology. (
The agencies are setting standards beginning in the 2014 model year and establishing more stringent standards in the 2017 model year. Table I-4 presents EPA's final CO
As mentioned above for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, EPA believes that N
As with the other regulatory categories of heavy-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA are adopting standards that apply to Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles at the time of production, and EPA is adopting standards for a specified period of time in use. All of the standards for these trucks, as well as details about the final provisions for certification and implementation of these standards, are discussed in more detail later in this notice and in the RIA.
EPA did not propose, nor is it adopting A/C refrigerant leakage standards for Class 2b-8 vocational vehicles, primarily because of the number of entities involved in their manufacture and thus the potential for different entities besides the chassis manufacturer to be involved in the A/C system production and installation.
The NPRM proposed to defer temporarily greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards for any manufacturers of heavy-duty engines, manufacturers of combination tractors, and chassis manufacturers for vocational vehicles that meet the “small business” size criteria set by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 13 CFR 121.201 defines a small business by the maximum number of employees; for example, this is currently 1,000 for heavy-duty vehicle manufacturing and 750 for engine manufacturing.
EPA and NHTSA were not aware of any manufacturers of HD pickups and vans that meet these criteria. For each of the other categories and for engines, the agencies identified a small number of manufacturers that would appear to qualify as small businesses under the SBA size criterion, which were estimated to comprise a negligible percentage of the U.S. market.
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) commented that the small business exemption proposed in the NPRM was based on the improper framework of whether the exemption would have a negligible impact, and did not adequately explain why the regulation of small businesses would face special compliance and administrative burdens. IPI argued that the only proper basis for this exemption would be if the agencies could explain how these burdens create costs that exceeded the benefits of regulation.
NHTSA believes that developing standards that are “appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible” under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) includes the authority to exclude certain manufacturers if their inclusion would work against these statutory factors. Similarly, under section 202(a) of the CAA, EPA may reasonably choose to defer regulation of industry segments based on considerations of cost, cost-effectiveness and available lead time for standards. As noted above, small businesses make up a very small percentage of the market and are estimated to have a negligible impact on the emissions and fuel consumption goals of this program. The short lead time before the CO
Volvo and EMA stated that by exempting small businesses based on the definition from SBA, the rules would create a competitive advantage for small businesses over larger entities. EMA commented that the exemption should not apply to market segments where a small business has a significant share of a particular HD market. Volvo argued that the exempted businesses could expand their product offerings or
Volvo also commented that the agencies should elaborate on the requirements for the exemption in greater detail. The agencies agree that this may help to clarify the process. As suggested by Volvo, the agencies will consider affiliations to other companies and evidence of spin-offs for the purpose of circumventing the standards in determining whether a business qualifies as a small entity for this exclusion. Each declaration must be submitted in writing to EPA and NHTSA as prescribed in Section V below. As the agencies gain more experience with this exemption, these clarifications may be codified in the regulatory text of a future rulemaking.
Volvo further commented that the agencies were adopting an exemption of “small businesses” in order to avoid doing a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis. The agencies would like to reiterate that they have decided not to include small businesses at this time due to the factors described above. The discussion on an RFA analysis is laid out in Section XII(4).
The agencies continue to believe that deferring the standards for these companies at this time will have a negligible impact on the GHG emission reductions and fuel consumption reductions that the program would otherwise achieve. Therefore, the final rules include the small business exemption as proposed. The specific deferral provisions are discussed in more detail in Section II.
The agencies will consider appropriate GHG emissions and fuel consumption standards for these entities as part of a future regulatory action.
After finalization of the N
The agencies believe that it is also appropriate to take steps to recognize the benefits of flexible-fueled vehicles (FFVs) and dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles. In the NPRM, EPA proposed to determine the emissions performance of dedicated alternative fuel engines and pickup trucks and vans by measuring tailpipe CO
The agencies received several comments from natural gas vehicle (NGV) interests arguing for greater crediting of NGVs than the proposed approach would have provided. Clean Energy, Hayday Farms, Border Valley, AGA, Ryder, Encana, and a group of NGV interests commented that the NPRM ignored Congress' intent to incentivize the use of NGVs by not including the conversion factor that exists in the light-duty statutory language. The commenters argued that Congress' intent to incentivize NGVs is evident in the formula contained in 49 U.S.C. 32905, which deems a gallon equivalent of gaseous fuel to have a fuel content of 0.15 gallon of fuel. The commenters also argued that Congress implicitly intended NGVs to be incentivized in this rulemaking, as evidenced by the incentives in the light-duty statutory text. AGA and Hayday suggested that the agencies were not including the NGV incentive from light-duty because Congress did not explicitly include it in 49 U.S.C. 32902(k), and argued that this would contradict the agencies' inclusion of other incentives similar to the light-duty rule.
The American Trucking Association expressed support for estimating natural gas fuel efficiency by using carbon emissions from natural gas rather than energy content to estimate fuel consumption. ATA explained that two vehicles can achieve the same fuel efficiency, yet one operated on natural gas would have a lower carbon dioxide emissions rate. A natural gas conversion factor that uses carbon content versus energy content is a more appropriate method for calculating fuel consumption, in the commenter's view. A number of other groups commented on the appropriate method to use in establishing fuel consumption from alternative fueled vehicles. A group of NGV interests, Ryder, Border Valley Trading, Waste Management, Robert Bosch and the Blue Green Alliance encouraged the agencies to adopt the 0.15 conversion factor in estimating fuel consumption for FFVs and alternative fuel vehicles finalized in the light-duty
The agencies reassessed the options for evaluating the CO
The agencies continue to believe that alternative-fueled vehicles, including NGVs, provide fuel consumption benefits that should be, and are, accounted for in this program. However, the agencies do not agree with the commenters' claim that the NGV incentive contained in EISA, and reflected in the light-duty program, is an explicit Congressional directive that must also be applied to the heavy-duty program, nor that the light-duty incentive for NGVs should be interpreted as an implicit Congressional directive for NGVs to be comparably incentivized in the heavy-duty program. Further, the agencies believe that the fuel consumption benefits that alternative fuel vehicles would obtain through measuring CO
The agencies believe this structure accurately reflects the fuel consumption of the vehicles while at the same time providing an incentive for the alternative fuel use. (For example, natural gas heavy duty engines perform 20 to 30 percent better than their diesel and gasoline counterparts from a CO
NHTSA recognizes that EPCA/EISA promotes incentives for alternative fueled vehicles for different purposes than does the CAA, and that there may be additional energy and national security benefits that could be achieved through increasing fleet percentages of natural gas and other alternative-fueled vehicles. More alternative-fueled vehicles on road would arguably displace petroleum-fueled vehicles, and thereby increase both U.S. energy and national security by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
However, a rule that adopts identical incentive provisions reduces industry reporting burdens and NHTSA's monitoring burden. In addition, the agencies are concerned that providing greater incentives under EPCA/EISA might lead to little increased production of alternative fueled vehicles. If this were the case, then the benefits of harmonization could outweigh any potential gains from providing greater incentives. It is also consistent with Executive Order 13563.
Adopting the same incentive provisions could also have benefits for the public, the regulated industries, and the agencies. This approach allows manufacturers to project clear benefits for the application of GHG-reduction and fuel efficiency technologies, thus spurring their adoption.
This combined rulemaking by EPA and NHTSA is designed to regulate two separate characteristics of heavy duty vehicles: Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and fuel consumption. In the case of diesel or gasoline powered vehicles, there is a one-to-one relationship between these two characteristics. Each gallon of gasoline combusted by a truck engine generates approximately 8,887 grams of CO
For alternatively fueled vehicles, which use no petroleum, the situation is different. For example, a natural gas vehicle that achieves approximately the same fuel economy as a diesel powered vehicle would emit 20 percent less CO
NHTSA notes that the purpose of EPCA/EISA is not merely to curb petroleum use—it is more generally to secure energy independence, which can be achieved by reducing petroleum use. The value of incentivizing natural gas, electric vehicles, biofuels, hydrogen, or other alt fuel vehicles for energy independence is limited to the extent that the alternative fuels may be imported.
In the recent rulemaking for light-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA have followed the light duty specific statutory provision that treats one gallon of alternative fuel as equivalent to 0.15 gallons of gasoline until MY 2016, when performance on the EPA CO
Instead, in this program, EPA and NHTSA are establishing identical rules. Fuel consumption for alternatively-powered vehicles will be calculated according to their tailpipe CO
In the future, the Agencies will consider the possibility of proposing standards in a way that more fully reflects differences in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Under such standards, any given vehicle might “over-comply” with the fuel economy standard, but might “under-comply” with the greenhouse gas standard. Therefore, in meeting the fleet-wide requirements, a manufacturer would need to meet both standards using all available options, such as credit trading and technology mix. Allowing for two distinct standards might enable manufacturers to achieve the twin goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing consumption of petroleum-based fuels in a more cost-effective manner.
This section summarizes the projected costs and benefits of the final NHTSA fuel consumption and EPA GHG emissions standards. These projections helped to inform the agencies' choices among the alternatives considered and provide further confirmation that the final standards are an appropriate choice within the spectrum of choices allowable under the agencies' respective statutory criteria. NHTSA and EPA have used common projected costs and benefits as the bases for our respective standards.
The agencies have analyzed in detail the projected costs, fuel savings, and benefits of the final GHG and fuel consumption standards. Table I-5 shows estimated lifetime discounted program costs (including technological outlays), fuel savings, and benefits for all heavy-duty vehicles projected to be sold in model years 2014-2018 over these vehicles' lives. The benefits include impacts such as climate-related economic benefits from reducing emissions of CO
The costs, fuel savings, and benefits summarized here are slightly higher than at proposal, reflecting the use of 2009 (versus 2008) dollars, some minor changes to our cost estimates in response to comments, and a change to the 2011 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) estimate of economic growth and future fuel prices. In aggregate, these changes lead to an increased estimate of the net benefits of the final action compared to the proposal.
Table I-6 shows the estimated lifetime reductions in CO
Table I-7 shows the estimated lifetime discounted benefits for all heavy-duty vehicles sold in model years 2014-2018. Although the agencies estimated the benefits associated with four different values of a one ton CO
Table I-8 shows the agencies' estimated lifetime fuel savings, lifetime CO
Table I-9 shows the estimated incremental and total technology outlays for all heavy-duty vehicles for each of the model years 2014-2018. The technology outlays shown in Table I-9 are for the industry as a whole and do not account for fuel savings associated with the program.
Table I-10 shows the agencies' estimated incremental cost increase of the average new heavy-duty vehicle for each model year 2014-2018. The values shown are incremental to a baseline vehicle and are not cumulative.
Both costs and benefits presented in this section are in comparison to a reference case with no improvements in fuel consumption or greenhouse gas emissions in model years 2014 to 2018.
For each of the heavy-duty vehicle and heavy-duty engine categories for which we are adopting respective standards, EPA and NHTSA are also finalizing provisions designed to give manufacturers a degree of flexibility in complying with the standards. These final provisions have enabled the agencies to consider overall standards that are more stringent and that will become effective sooner than we could consider with a more rigid program, one in which all of a manufacturer's similar vehicles or engines would be required to achieve the same emissions or fuel consumption levels, and at the same time.
NHTSA's and EPA's flexibility provisions are essentially identical in structure and function. Within combination tractor and vocational vehicle categories and within heavy-duty engines, we are finalizing four primary types of flexibility: Averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions; early credits; advanced technology credits (including hybrid powertrains); and innovative technology credit provisions. The final ABT provisions are patterned on existing EPA and NHTSA ABT programs and will allow a vehicle manufacturer to reduce CO
At proposal, we restricted the use of the ABT provisions of the program to vehicles or engines within the same regulatory subcategory. This meant that credit exchanges could only happen between similar vehicles meeting the same standards. We proposed this approach for two reasons. First, we were concerned about a level playing field between different manufacturers who may not participate equally in the various truck and engine markets covered in the regulation. Second, we were concerned about the uncertainties inherent in credit calculations that are based on projections of lifetime emissions for different vehicles in wholly different vehicle markets. In response to comments, we have revised our ABT provisions to provide greater flexibility while continuing to provide assurance that the projected reductions in fuel consumption and GHG emissions will be achieved. We are relaxing the restriction on averaging, banking, and trading of credits between the various regulatory subcategories, by defining three HD vehicle averaging sets: Light Heavy-Duty (Classes 2b-5); Medium Heavy-Duty (Class 6-7); and Heavy Heavy-Duty (Class 8). This allows the use of credits between vehicles within the same weight class. This means that a Class 8 day cab tractor can exchange credits with a Class 8 high roof sleeper tractor but not with a smaller Class 7 tractor. Also, a Class 8 vocational vehicle can exchange credits with a Class 8 tractor. We are adopting these revisions based on comments from the regulated industry that convinced us these changes would allow the broadest trading possible while maintaining a level playing field among the various market segments. However, we are restricting trading between engines and chassis, even within the same vehicle class.
The agencies believe that restricting trading to within the same eight classes as EPA's existing criteria pollutant program (
The agencies considered even broader averaging, banking, and trading provisions but decided that in this first phase of regulation, it would be prudent to start with the program described here, which will regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from this sector for the first time and provide considerable early reductions as well as opportunities to learn about technical and other issues that can inform future rulemakings. In the future we intend to consider whether additional cost savings could be realized through broader trading provisions and whether such provisions could be designed so as to address any other relevant concerns.
Reducing the cost of regulation through broader use of market tools is a high priority for the Administration. See Executive Order 13563 and in particular section 1(b)(5) and section 4. Consistent with this principle, we intend to seek public comment through a Notice of Data Availability after credit trading begins in 2013, the first year we expect manufacturers to begin certifying 2014 model year vehicles, on whether broader credit trading is more appropriate in developing the next phase of heavy-duty regulations. We believe that input will be better informed by the work the agencies and the regulated industry will have put into implementing this first phase of heavy-duty regulations.
Through this public process, emphasizing the Administration's strong preference for flexible approaches and maximizing the use of market tools, the agencies intend to fully consider whether broader credit trading is more appropriate in developing the next phase of heavy-duty regulations.
This program thus does not allow credits to be exchanged between heavy-duty vehicles and light-duty vehicles, nor can credits be traded from heavy-duty vehicle fleets to light-duty vehicle fleets and vice versa.
The engine ABT provisions are also changed from the proposal and now are the same as in EPA's existing criteria pollutant emission rules. The agencies have broadened the averaging sets to include both FTP-certified and SET-certified engines in the same averaging set. For example, a SET-certified engine intended for a Class 8 tractor can exchange credits with a FTP-certified engine intended for a Class 8 vocational vehicle.
The agencies are finalizing three year deficit carry-forward provisions for heavy-duty engines and vehicles within a limited time frame. This flexibility is expected to provide an opportunity for manufacturers to make necessary technological improvements and reduce the overall cost of the program without compromising overall environmental and fuel economy objectives. This flexibility, similar to the flexibility the agencies have offered under the light-duty vehicle program, is intended to assist the broad goal of harmonizing the two agencies' standards while preserving the flexibility of manufacturers of vehicles and engines in meeting the standards, to the extent appropriate and required by law. During the MYs 2014-2018 manufacturers are expected to go through the normal business cycle of redesigning and upgrading their heavy-duty engine and vehicle products, and in some cases introducing entirely new vehicles and engines not on the market today. As explained in the following paragraph, the carry-forward provision will allow manufacturers the time needed to incorporate technology to achieve GHG reductions and improve fuel economy during the vehicle redesign process.
We received comments from Center for Biological Diversity against the need to offer the deficit carry-forward flexibility. CBD has stated that allowing manufacturers to carry-forward deficits for up to three years would incentivize delays in investment and technological innovation and allow for the generation of additional tons of GHG emissions that may be prevented today. However, the deficit carry-forward flexibility (as well as ABT generally) has enabled the agencies to consider overall standards that are more stringent and that will become effective at an earlier period than we could consider with a more rigid program. The agencies also believe this flexibility is an important aspect of the program, as it avoids the much higher costs that would occur if manufacturers needed to add or change technology at times other than their scheduled redesigns,
As noted above, in addition to ABT, the other primary flexibility provisions in this program involve opportunities to generate early credits, advanced technology credits (including for use of
For other technologies which can reduce CO
CBD argued that including any opportunities for manufacturers to earn credits in the final rule would violate NHTSA's statutory mandate to implement a program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement.
NHTSA strongly believes that creating credit flexibilities for manufacturers for this first phase of the HD National Program is fully consistent with the agency's obligation to develop a fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement. EISA gives NHTSA broad authority to develop “compliance and enforcement protocols” that are “appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible,” and the agency believes that compliance flexibilities such as the opportunity to earn and use credits to meet the standards are a reasonable and appropriate interpretation of that authority, along with the other compliance and enforcement provisions developed for this final rule. Unlike in NHTSA's light-duty program, where the agency is restricted from considering the availability of credits in determining the maximum feasible level of stringency for the fuel economy standards,
By assuming the use of credits for compliance, the agencies were able to set the fuel consumption/GHG standards at more stringent levels than would otherwise have been feasible. Greater improvements in fuel efficiency will occur under more stringent standards; manufacturers will simply have greater flexibility to determine where and how to make those improvements than they would have without credit options. Further, this is consistent with EOs 12866 and 13563, which encourage agencies to design regulations that promote innovation and flexibility where possible.
A detailed discussion of each agency's ABT, early credit, advanced technology, and innovative technology provisions for each regulatory category of heavy-duty vehicles and engines is found in Section IV below.
Title II of the CAA provides for comprehensive regulation of mobile sources, authorizing EPA to regulate emissions of air pollutants from all mobile source categories. When acting under Title II of the CAA, EPA considers such issues as technology effectiveness, its cost (both per vehicle, per manufacturer, and per consumer), the lead time necessary to implement the technology, and based on this the feasibility and practicability of potential standards; the impacts of potential standards on emissions reductions of both GHGs and non-GHGs; the impacts of standards on oil conservation and energy security; the impacts of standards on fuel savings by customers; the impacts of standards on the truck industry; other energy impacts; as well as other relevant factors such as impacts on safety.
This final action implements a specific provision from Title II, section 202(a).
Any standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) “shall be applicable to such vehicles * * * for their useful life.” Emission standards set by the EPA under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-based, as the levels chosen must be premised on a finding of technological feasibility. Thus, standards promulgated under CAA section 202(a) are to take effect only “after providing such period as the Administrator finds necessary to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period” (section 202(a)(2);
Although standards under CAA section 202(a)(1) are technology-based, they are not based exclusively on technological capability. EPA has the discretion to consider and weigh various factors along with technological feasibility, such as the cost of compliance (
In addition, EPA has clear authority to set standards under CAA section 202(a) that are technology forcing when EPA considers that to be appropriate, but is not required to do so (as compared to standards set under provisions such as section 202(a)(3) and section 213(a)(3)).
While the statutory language of section 231 is not identical to other provisions in title II of the CAA that direct EPA to establish technology-based standards for various types of engines, EPA interprets its authority under section 231 to be somewhat similar to those provisions that require us to identify a reasonable balance of specified emissions reduction, cost, safety, noise, and other factors.
This interpretation was upheld as reasonable in
Under section 203 of the CAA, sales of vehicles are prohibited unless the vehicle is covered by a certificate of conformity. EPA issues certificates of conformity pursuant to section 206 of the Act, based on (necessarily) pre-sale testing conducted either by EPA or by the manufacturer. The Heavy-duty Federal Test Procedure (Heavy-duty FTP) and the Supplemental Engine Test (SET) are used for this purpose. Compliance with standards is required not only at certification but throughout a vehicle's useful life, so that testing requirements may continue post-certification. Useful life standards may apply an adjustment factor to account for vehicle emission control deterioration or variability in use (section 206(a)).
EPA established the Light-duty FTP for emissions measurement in the early 1970s. In 1976, in response to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, EPA extended the use of the Light-duty FTP to fuel economy measurement (
Section 207 of the CAA grants EPA broad authority to require manufacturers to remedy vehicles if EPA determines there are a substantial number of noncomplying vehicles. In addition, section 205 of the CAA authorizes EPA to assess penalties of up to $37,500 per vehicle for violations of various prohibited acts specified in the CAA. In determining the appropriate penalty, EPA must consider a variety of factors such as the gravity of the violation, the economic impact of the violation, the violator's history of compliance, and “such other matters as justice may require.”
In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), mandating a regulatory program for motor vehicle fuel economy to meet the various facets of the need to conserve energy. In December 2007, Congress
NHTSA has primary responsibility for fuel economy and consumption standards, and assures compliance with EISA through rulemaking, including standard-setting; technical reviews, audits and studies; investigations; and enforcement of implementing regulations including penalty actions. This final action implements Section 32902(k)(2) of EISA, which instructs NHTSA to create a fuel efficiency improvement program for “commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks”
NHTSA has clear authority to design and implement a fuel efficiency program for vehicles and work trucks under EISA, and was given broad discretion to balance the statutory factors in Section 32902(k)(2) in developing fuel consumption standards to achieve the maximum feasible improvement. Since this is the first rulemaking that NHTSA has conducted under 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2), the agency interpreted these elements and factors in the context of setting standards, choosing metrics, and determining test methods and compliance/enforcement mechanisms. Discussion of the application of these factors can be found in Section III below. Congress also gave NHTSA the authority to set separate standards for different classes of these vehicles, but required that all standards adopted provide not less than four full model years of regulatory lead-time and three full model years of regulatory stability.
In EISA, Congress required NHTSA to prescribe separate average fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks in accordance with the provisions in 49 U.S.C. Section 32902(b), and to prescribe standards for work trucks and commercial medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in accordance with the provisions in 49 U.S.C. 32902(k).
Robert Bosch LLC (Bosch) commented that the absence of an expiration date for the standards proposed in the NPRM could violate 49 U.S.C. 32902, which it interpreted as requiring the MD/HD program to have standards that expire in five years. Section 32902(k)(3), which lays out the requirements for the MD/HD program, specifies the minimum regulatory lead and stability times, as described above, but does not specify a maximum duration period. In contrast, Section 32902(b)(3)(B) lays out the minimum and maximum durations of standards to be established in a rulemaking for the light-duty program, but prescribes no minimum lead or stability time. Bosch argued that as 49 U.S.C. Section 32902(k)(3) does not require a maximum duration period, Congress intended that NHTSA take the maximum duration period specified for the light-duty program in Section 32902(b)(3)(B), five years, and apply it to Section 32902(k)(3). Bosch also argued, however, that the minimum duration period should not be carried over from the light-duty to the heavy-duty section, as a minimum duration period for HD was specified in Section 32902(k)(3).
NHTSA has revisited this issue and continues to believe that it is reasonable to assume that if Congress intended for the HD/MD regulatory program to be limited by the timeline prescribed in Subsection (b)(3)(B), it would have either mentioned HD/MD vehicles in that subsection or included the same timeline in Subsection (k).
Another commenter, CBD, expressed concern that lack of an expiration date meant that the standards would remain indefinitely, thus forgoing the possibility of increased stringency in the future. CBD argued that this violated NHTSA's statutory duty to set maximum feasible standards. NHTSA disagrees that the indefinite duration of the standards in this rule would prevent the agency from setting future standards at the maximum feasible level in future rulemakings. The absence of an expiration date for these standards should not be interpreted to mean that there will be no future rulemakings to establish new MD/HD fuel efficiency standards for MYs 2019 and beyond—the agencies have already previewed the possibility of such a rulemaking in other parts of this final rule preamble. Therefore, NHTSA believes this concern is unnecessary.
49 U.S.C. Section 32902(k)(2) states that NHTSA must adopt and implement appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible test methods and measurement metrics as part of the fuel efficiency improvement program. For this program, manufacturers will test and conduct modeling to determine GHG emissions and fuel consumption performance, and EPA and NHTSA will perform validation testing. The results of the validation tests will be used by EPA to create a finalized reporting that confirms the manufacturer's final model year GHG emissions and fuel consumption results, which each agency will use to enforce compliance with its standards.
The NPRM proposed a compliance and enforcement program that included civil penalties for violations of the fuel efficiency standards. 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2) states that NHTSA must adopt and implement appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible compliance and enforcement protocols for the fuel efficiency improvement program. Congress gave DOT broad discretion to fashion its fuel efficiency improvement program and thus necessarily did not speak directly or specifically as to the nature of the compliance and enforcement protocols that would be best suited for effectively supporting the yet-to-be-designed-and-established program. Instead, it left the matter generally to the Secretary. Congress' approach is unlike CAFE enforcement for passenger cars and light trucks, where Congress specified the precise details of a program and provided that a manufacturer either complies with standards or pays civil penalties.
The statute is silent with respect to how “protocol” should be interpreted. The term “protocol” is imprecise and thus Congress' choice of that term affords the agency substantial breadth of discretion. For example, in a case interpreting Section 301(c)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the DC Circuit noted that the word “protocols” has many definitions that are not much help.
Taking the considerations above into account, including Congress' instructions to adopt and implement compliance and enforcement protocols, and the Secretary's authority to formulate policy and make rules to fill gaps left, implicitly or explicitly, by Congress, the agency interpreted “protocol” in the context of EISA as authorizing the agency to determine both whether manufacturers have complied with the standards, and to establish suitable and reasonable enforcement mechanisms and decision criteria for non-compliance. Therefore, NHTSA interpreted its authority to develop an enforcement program to include the authority to determine and assess civil penalties for non-compliance.
Several commenters disagreed with this interpretation. Volvo and EMA commented that the penalties proposed by NHTSA exceeded the authority granted to the agency by Congress, and Volvo commented that the fact that Congress did not adopt an entirely new statute for the HD program should be interpreted to mean that provisions adopted for the light-duty program should apply to the HD program as well. Daimler argued that it was likely that EISA did not give NHTSA the authority to assess civil penalties, and Navistar and EMA argued that NHTSA could not have the authority as Congress did not expressly grant it.
NHTSA continues to believe that it is reasonable to interpret “compliance and enforcement protocols” to include authority to impose civil penalties. Where a statute does not specify an approach, the discretion to do so is left to the agency. When Congress has “explicitly left a gap for an agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation.”
Further, NHTSA believes that Congress would have anticipated that compliance and enforcement protocols would include civil penalties for the HD sector, given that penalties are an integral part of a product standards program and given the long precedent of civil penalties for the light-duty sector. The agency disagrees with the argument that the HD program would have appeared in a wholly separate statute if Congress had not intended the penalty program for light-duty to apply to it. The inclusion of the MD/HD program in Title 329 does not mean that Congress intended for the boundaries and differences between the separate sections to be ignored. Rather, this argument leads to the opposite conclusion that the fact that Congress created a new section for the HD program, instead of simply amending the existing light-duty program to include “work trucks and other vehicles” in addition to automobiles, means the agency should assume that Congress acted intentionally when it created two wholly separate programs and respect their distinctions. Therefore, consistent with the statutory interpretation proposed in the NPRM, the final rule includes penalties for non-compliance with the fuel efficiency standards.
NHTSA proposed to adopt penalty levels equal to those in EPA's existing heavy-duty program, in order to provide adequate deterrence as well as consistency with the GHG regulation. The proposed maximum penalty levels were $37,500.00 per vehicle or engine.
Several manufacturers commented that the penalty levels should be limited to those mandated in the light-duty program. Volvo and Daimler argued that Congress intended lower penalties for the HD program than were proposed in the NPRM, because they believed that Congress had expressly or implicitly intended for the HD program to be included in the penalty calculation of Section 32912(b). That section prescribes penalty levels for violators under Section 32902 of “$5 multiplied
NHTSA recognizes that Section 329 contains a detailed penalty scheme, for light-duty vehicle CAFE standards. However, Section 32902(k)(2) explicitly directs NHTSA to “adopt and implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols,” in the creation of the new HD program. NHTSA continues to believe that this broad Congressional mandate should be interpreted based on a plain text reading, which includes the authority to determine compliance and enforcement protocols that will be effective and appropriate for this new sector of regulation. NHTSA also believes that reading Section 32912 to apply to the new HD program would contradict Congress' broad mandate for the agency to establish new measurement metrics and a compliance and enforcement program. Further, interpreting the requirement to create “enforcement protocols” for HD vehicles to mean that NHTSA should rely on the enforcement provisions for light-duty vehicles would go against the canon noted above that statutes should not be interpreted in a way that “render[s] language superfluous.”
NHTSA believes that Section 32912 does not apply to the new HD program for several other reasons. First, this section uses a fuel economy metric, miles/gallon, while the HD program is built around a fuel consumption metric, per the requirement to develop a “fuel efficiency improvement program” and the agencies' conclusion, supported by NAS, that a fuel consumption metric is a much more reasonable choice than a fuel economy metric for HD vehicles given their usage as work vehicles. Second, this section specifies a calculation for automobiles, a vehicle class which is confined to the light-duty rule. In addition, the HD program prescribes fuel consumption standards, not average fuel economy standards.
Finally, NHTSA believes that if Congress had intended for a pre-determined penalty scheme to apply to the new HD program, it would have been specific. Instead, Congress explicitly directed the agency to develop a new measurement, compliance, and enforcement scheme. Consistent with the statutory interpretation of the duration of the standards, NHTSA believes that if Congress intended for particular penalty levels to be used in Section 32902(k)(3), it would have either included a reference to those levels or included a reference in 32912 to the vehicles and metrics regulated by 32902(k)(3). See
NHTSA believes that, based on EPA's experience regulating this sector for criteria pollutants, the proposed maximum penalty is at an appropriate level to create deterrence for non-compliance, while at the same time, not so high as to create undue hardship for manufacturers. Therefore, the final rule retains the maximum penalty level proposed in the NPRM.
This final action represents a first regulatory step by NHTSA and EPA to address the multi-faceted challenges of reducing fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions from these vehicles. By focusing on existing technologies and well-developed regulatory tools, the agencies are able to adopt rules that we believe will produce real and important reductions in GHG emissions and fuel consumption within only a few years. Within the context of this regulatory time frame, our program is very aggressive—with limited lead time compared to historic heavy-duty regulations—but pragmatic in the context of technologies that are available and that can be reasonably implemented during the regulatory time frame.
While we are now only finalizing this first step, it is worthwhile to consider how the next regulatory step may be designed. Technologies such as hybrid drivetrains, advanced bottoming cycle engines, and full electric vehicles are promoted in this first step through incentive concepts as discussed in Section IV, but we believe that these advanced technologies will not be necessary to meet the final standards. Today's standards are premised on the use of existing technologies given the short lead time, as discussed in Section III, below. When we begin work to develop a possible next set of regulatory standards, the agencies expect these advanced technologies to be an important part of the regulatory program and will consider them in setting the stringency of any standards beyond the 2018 model year.
We will not only consider the progress of technology in our future regulatory efforts, but the agencies are also committed to fully considering a range of regulatory approaches. To more completely capture the complex interactions of the total vehicle and the potential to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions through the optimization of those interactions may require a more sophisticated approach to vehicle testing than we are adopting today for the largest heavy-duty vehicles. In future regulations, the agencies expect to fully evaluate the potential to expand the use of vehicle compliance models to reflect engine and drivetrain performance. Similarly, we intend to consider the potential for complete vehicle testing using a chassis dynamometer, not only as a means for compliance, but also as a complementary tool for the development of more complex vehicle modeling approaches. In considering these more comprehensive regulatory approaches, the agencies will also reevaluate whether separate regulation of trucks and engines remains necessary.
In addition to technology and test procedures, vehicle and engine drive cycles are an important part of the overall approach to evaluating and improving vehicle performance. EPA, working through the WP.29 Global Technical Regulation process, has actively participated in the development of a new World Harmonized Duty Cycle for heavy-duty engines. EPA is committed to bringing forward these new procedures as part of our overall comprehensive approach for controlling
As noted above, the agencies also intend to further investigate possibilities of expanded credit trading across the heavy-duty sector. As part of this effort, the agencies will investigate the degree to which the issue of credit trading is connected with complete vehicle testing procedures.
As with this program, our future efforts will be based on collaborative outreach with the stakeholder community and will be focused on a program that delivers on our energy security and environmental goals without restricting the industry's ability to produce a very diverse range of vehicles serving a wide range of needs.
This section describes the standards and implementation dates that the agencies are finalizing for the three categories of heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The agencies have performed a technology analysis to determine the level of standards that we believe will be cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate in the lead time provided. This analysis, described in Section III and in more detail in the RIA Chapter 2, considered for each of the regulatory categories:
• The level of technology that is incorporated in current new engines and trucks,
• Forecasts of manufacturers' product redesign schedules,
• The available data on corresponding CO
• Technologies that would reduce CO
• The effectiveness and cost of these technologies, and
• Projections of future U.S. sales for trucks and engines.
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing standards for heavy-duty engines and also for what we refer to generally as “heavy-duty vehicles.” In general, these standards will apply for the model year 2014 and later engines and vehicles, although some standards do not apply until 2016 or 2017. The EPA standards will apply throughout the useful life of the engine or vehicle, just as existing criteria emission standards apply throughout the useful life. As noted in Section I, for purposes of this preamble and rules, the term “heavy-duty or “HD” applies to all highway vehicles and engines that are not regulated by the light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck and medium-duty passenger vehicle greenhouse gas and CAFE standards issued for MYs 2012-2016. Thus, in this notice, unless specified otherwise, the heavy-duty category incorporates all vehicles rated with GVWR greater than 8,500 pounds, and the engines that power these vehicles, except for MDPVs. The CAA defines heavy-duty vehicles as trucks, buses or other motor vehicles with GVWR exceeding 6,000 pounds.
The NPRM did not include an export exclusion in NHTSA's fuel consumption standards. Oshkosh Corporation commented that NHTSA should add an export exclusion in order to accommodate the testing and delivery needs of manufacturers of vehicles intended for export. NHTSA agrees with this comment and Section 535.3 of the final rule specifies such an exclusion.
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing standards for each of the following categories, which together comprise all heavy-duty vehicles and all engines used in such vehicles. In order to most appropriately regulate the broad range of heavy-duty vehicles and engines, the agencies are setting separate engine and vehicle standards for the combination tractors and Class 2b through 8 vocational vehicles. The engine standards and test procedures for engines installed in the tractors and vocational vehicles are discussed within the preamble sections for combination tractors and vocational vehicles, respectively. The agencies are establishing standards for heavy-duty pickups and vans that apply to the entire vehicle;—there are no separate engine standards.
As discussed in Section IX, the agencies are not adopting GHG emission and fuel consumption standards for trailers at this time. In addition, the agencies are not adopting standards at this time for engine, chassis, and vehicle manufacturers which are small businesses (as defined by the Small Business Administration). More detailed discussion of each regulatory category is included in the subsequent sections below.
EPA is finalizing CO
EPA is also finalizing standards to control N
The agencies are finalizing CO
The agencies have analyzed the feasibility of achieving the CO
The agencies received comments from multiple stakeholders regarding the definition and classification of “combination tractors.” The commenters raised three key issues. First, EMA/TMA, Navistar and DTNA requested that both agencies use the same definition for “tractor” or “truck tractor” in the final rules. EPA proposed a definition for “tractor” in § 1037.801 (see the proposed rule published November 30, 2010, 75 FR 74402) which stated that “tractor” means a vehicle capable of pulling trailers that is not intended to carry significant cargo other than cargo in the trailer, or any other vehicle intended for the primary purpose of pulling a trailer. For purposes of this definition, the term ”cargo” includes permanently attached equipment such as fire-fighting equipment. The following vehicles are tractors: any vehicle sold to an ultimate purchaser with a fifth wheel coupling installed; any vehicle sold to an ultimate purchaser with the rear portion of the frame exposed where the length of the exposed portion is 5.0 meters or less. See § 1037.620 for special provisions related to vehicles sold to secondary vehicle manufacturers in this condition. The following vehicles are not tractors: Any vehicle sold to an ultimate purchaser with an installed cargo carrying feature (for example, this would include dump trucks and cement trucks); any vehicle lacking a fifth wheel coupling sold to an ultimate purchaser with the rear portion of the frame exposed where the length of the exposed portion is more than 5.0 meters.
NHTSA proposed to use the 49 CFR 571.3 definition of “truck tractor” in 49 CFR 535.4 (see the proposed rule published November 30, 2010, 75 FR 74440) which stated that “truck tractor” means a truck designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn.
Second, EMA/TMA, NTEA and Navistar expressed concerns over, and requested the removal of, the proposed language that all vehicles with sleeper cabs would be classified as tractors. The commenters argued that because there are vocational vehicles manufactured with sleeper cabs that operate as vocational vehicles and not as tractors, those vehicles should be treated the same as all other vocational vehicles. Third, eleven different commenters requested that the agencies subdivide tractors into line-haul tractors and vocational tractors and treat each based upon their operational characteristics: vocational tractors, which operate at lower speeds offroad or in stop-and-go city driving as vocational vehicles; and line-haul tractors, which operate at highway speeds on interstate roadways over long distances, as line-haul tractors.
In response to the first comment, the agencies have decided to standardize the definition of tractor by using the long-standing NHTSA definition of “truck tractor” established in 49 CFR 571.3. 49 CFR 571.3(b) states that a “truck tractor means a truck designed primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn.” EPA's proposed definition for “tractor” in the NPRM was similar to the NHTSA definition, but included some additional language to require a fifth wheel coupling and an exposed frame in the rear of the vehicle where the length of the exposed portion is 5.0 meters or less. EMA and Navistar argued that these two different definitions could lead to confusion if the agencies applied their requirements for truck tractors differently from each other. The commenters suggested that the EPA definition was more complicated than necessary, and that the simpler NHTSA definition should be used by both agencies as the base definition of truck tractor.
The agencies agree that the definitions should be standardized and that the NHTSA definition is sufficient and includes the essential requirement that a truck tractor is a truck designed “primarily for drawing other motor vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and the load so drawn.” EPA's proposed tractor definition was intended to be functionally equivalent to NHTSA's definition based on design, but to be more objective by including the criteria related to “fifth wheels” and exposed rear frame. However, EPA no longer believes that such additional criteria are needed for implementation. NHTSA established the definition for truck tractor in 49 CFR 571.3(b) years ago,
In response to the second comment, the agencies have decided not to classify vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs as tractors. In the NPRM, the agencies proposed that vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs be classified as tractors out of concern that a vehicle could initially be manufactured as a straight truck vocational vehicle with a sleeper cab and, soon after introduction into commerce, be converted to a combination tractor as a means to circumvent the Class 8 sleeper cab regulations. Commenters who addressed this issue generally disagreed with the agencies' concern. EMA/TMA, for example, argued that it is expensive and difficult for a manufacturer to change a vehicle from a straight truck to a tractor, because of modifications required to the vehicle, such as to the vehicle's air brake system, and also because of the manufacturers ultimate responsibility for recertification to NHTSA's safety standards. EMA/TMA also argued that straight trucks are often built with sleeper cabs to perform the functions of a vocational type vehicle and not the functions of a line-haul tractor. NTEA also provided an example of a straight truck (Expediter Cab) that can be built with a sleeper cab and a cargo-carrying body, which it argued should be classified as a vocational vehicle and not a tractor.
Upon further consideration, the agencies agree that vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs are more appropriately classified as vocational vehicles than as tractors. The comments discussed above help to illustrate the reasons for building a vocational vehicle with a sleeper cab and the difficulties of converting a straight truck to a tractor. Moreover, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 requires any service organization making such modifications to be responsible for recertification to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which should act as a further deterrent to anyone contemplating making such a conversion. Together these two items address the agencies' primary reason for proposing the requirement that all vehicles with sleeper cabs be treated as tractors—the concern of circumvention of the tractor standards. However, the agencies will continue to monitor whether it appears that the definitions are creating unintended consequences, and may consider revising the definitions in a future rulemaking to address such issues should any arise. NHTSA and EPA have concluded that the engine and tire improvements required in the vocational category are appropriate for this set of vehicles based on the typical operation of these vehicles. The agencies did not intend to include vocational vehicles with sleeper cabs, such as an Expediter vehicle, into the tractor category in either the NPRM or in this final action, and the agencies' analyses at proposal reflected this intention. Therefore the agencies did not make any adjustments to the program costs and benefits due to this classification change.
In response to the third comment, the agencies have decided to allow manufacturers to exclude certain vocational-type of tractors from the combination tractor standards and instead be subject to the vocational vehicle standards. We discuss below the reasoning underlying this decision, the criteria manufacturers would use in asserting a claim that a vocational tractor should be reclassified as a vocational vehicle, and the procedures the agencies will use to accept or reject manufacturers' claims.
Multiple commenters (Allison Transmission, ATA, CALSTART, Eaton, EMA/TMA, National Solid Waste Management Association, MEMA, Navistar, NADA, RMA, and Volvo) argued that the agencies' proposed classification failed to recognize genuine differences between vocational tractors, which typically operate at lower speeds in stop-and-go city driving, and line-haul tractors, which typically operate at highway speeds on interstate roadways over long distances. Commenters argued that the proposed tractor standards and associated tractor GEM test cycles were derived based primarily upon the operational characteristics of the line-haul tractors, and that technologies that apply to these line-haul tractors, such as improved aerodynamics, vehicle speed limiters and automatic engine shutdown, as well as engine performance for improving emissions and fuel consumption, do not have the same positive impact on fuel consumption when used on tractors. In today's market, as mentioned by Volvo and ATA, we understand that approximately 15 percent, or approximately 15,000 to 20,000, of the Class 7 and 8 tractors could be classified as vocational tractors based upon the work they perform.
The agencies agree that the overall operation of these vocational-types of tractors resembles other vocational vehicles' operation: lower average speed and more stop and go activity than line-haul tractors. Due to their operation style, a FTP certified engine is a better match for these tractors than a SET certified engine, because the FTP cycle uses a lower average speed and more stop and go activity than the SET cycle. In addition, the limited high speed operation leads to minimal opportunities for fuel consumption and CO
The agencies received several other comments that described criteria that could be used to distinguish between vocational and non-vocational tractors. Volvo suggested that a tractor could be a vocational tractor if it meets three of five specified features:
(1) A frame Resisting Bending Moment (RBM) greater than or equal to 2,000,000 in-lbs per rail, or rail and liner combination;
(2) An approach angle greater than or equal to 20 degrees nominal design specification, to exclude extended front rails/bumpers for additional equipment (
(3) Ground clearance greater than or equal to 14 inches as measured unladen from the lowest point of any frame rail or body mounted components, excluding axles and suspension (for HHD and MHD vehicles this is usually considered as the lowest point of the fuel tank/mounting or chassis aerodynamic devices);
(4) A total reduction in high gear greater than or equal to 3.00:1; and
(5) A total reduction in low gear greater than or equal to 57:1.
The approach proposed by Volvo is somewhat similar to the approach NHTSA has for determining if a vehicle is a light truck under the light vehicle CAFE program, in which a vehicle must either have a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds or have 4-wheel drive, and meet
Two other commenters, EMA/TMA and Navistar, suggested simply that the manufacturer should have the burden of establishing that a tractor is a vocational tractor to the agencies' reasonable satisfaction. The commenters also suggested some factors that could be used to establish that a tractor is actually a “vocational tractor”, including:
(1) A vehicle speed limiter set at 55 mph or less;
(2) Power take-off (PTO) controls;
(3) Extended front frame;
(4) Ground clearance greater than 14 in.;
(5) An approach angle greater than 20 degrees;
(6) Frame RBM greater than 2,000,000 in-lbs.; and
(7) A total gear reduction in low gear greater than 57 and a total gear reduction in top gear greater than 3.
The agencies believe that both suggested approaches have some merit. A rule based on specific criteria as suggested by Volvo could help to minimize the burden on both the manufacturers and the agencies, as manufacturer-written requests for approval and agency approvals of those requests would not be required for each vocational tractor determination whereas the EMA/TMA and Navistar approach requires the opposite namely that each manufacturer would have to justify the determination of each vocational tractor based upon its related design features in a separate petition to the agencies. Neither of the two approaches, which are based on specific criteria, could be used to identify all the tractors that should be classified as vocational tractors. An urban beverage delivery tractor, for example, may not be designed with any of the features mentioned but is used in a vocational vehicle manner. Also, the agencies were concerned about the possibility of manufacturers circumventing the system by incorporating design changes to their line-haul tractors in order to classify them as vocational tractors required to meet less stringent emission and fuel consumption standards. However, at this time the agencies do not believe that circumventing the system is likely, as most of these vocational tractors are built to order and will incorporate the design features required by the customer. Manufacturer vehicle offerings are designed or tailored to suit the particular task of the consumer. The vehicle transport mission including vehicle type, gross vehicle weight, gross combination weight, body style and load handling characteristics, must be considered in the design process. Further, how the vehicle will be utilized, including operating cycles, operating environment and road conditions, is another important consideration in designing a vehicle to accomplish a particular task. The agencies agree that these criteria could also be used as part of a basis for classification. We also note that many of these vehicles have front axle weight ratings greater than 14,600 pounds.
Although the agencies agree that these vocational tractors are operated differently than line-haul tractors and therefore fit more appropriately into the vocational vehicle category, we need to ensure that only tractors that are truly vocational tractors are classified as such. Upon further consideration of the comments received the agencies have decided to allow manufacturers to exclude certain vocational-type tractors from the combination tractor standards, and instead be subject to the standards for vocational vehicles. A vehicle determined by the manufacturer to be a HHD vocational tractor would fall into the HHD vocational vehicle subcategory and be regulated as a vocational vehicle. Similarly, MHD which the manufacturer chooses to reclassify as vocational tractors will be regulated as a MHD vocational vehicle. Specifically, under the provision being finalized at 40 CFR 1037.630 and NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR 523.2 of today's rules only the following three types of vocational tractors are eligible for reclassification by the manufacturer:
(1) Low-roof tractors intended for intra-city pickup and delivery, such as those that deliver bottled beverages to retail stores.
(2) Tractors intended for off-road operation (including mixed service operation), such as those with reinforced frames and increased ground clearance.
(3) Tractors with a GCWR over 120,000 pounds.
As adopted in 40 CFR 1037.230(a)(1)(xiii), manufacturers will be required to group vocational tractors into a unique family, separate from other combination tractors and vocational vehicles. The provision being adopted in 40 CFR 1037.630 and 49 CFR 535.8 requires the manufacturers to summarize in their applications their basis for believing that the vehicles are eligible for manufacturer reclassification as vocational tractors. EPA and NHTSA could ask for a more detailed description of the basis and EPA would deny an application for certification where it determines the manufacturer lacks an adequate basis for reclassification. The manufacturer would then have to resubmit a modified application to certify the vehicles in question to the tractor standards. Where we determine that a manufacturer is not applying this allowance in good faith, we may require that manufacturer to obtain preliminary approval before using this allowance. This would mean that a manufacturer would need to submit its detailed records to EPA and receive formal approval before submitting its application for certification. The agencies plan to monitor how manufacturers classify their tractor fleets and would reconsider the issue of vocational tractor classification in a future rulemaking if necessary.
Because the difference between some vocational tractors and line-haul tractors is potentially somewhat subjective, we are also including an annual sales limit of 7,000 vocational tractors per manufacturer (based on a three year rolling average) consistent with past production volumes of such vehicles. It is important to note, however, that we do not expect it to be common for manufacturers to be able to justify classifying 7,000 vehicles as vocational tractors in a given model year.
Under the regulations being promulgated in 40 CFR 1037.630 and 49 CFR 523.2, manufacturers will be required to keep records of how they determined that such vehicles qualify as vocational. These records would be more detailed than the description submitted in the applications. Typically, this would be a combination of records of the design features and/or purchasers of the vehicles. The agencies have analyzed the design features that reflect the special needs of these vocational tractors in the three areas noted above—mixed service, heavy haul, and urban delivery. Mixed service applications, such as construction trucks, typically require higher ground clearance and approach angle to accommodate non-paved roads. In addition, they often require frame rails with greater resisting bending moment (RBM) because of the terrain where they operate.
As proposed, EPA and NHTSA are finalizing different standards for different subcategories of these tractors with the basis for subcategorization being particular tractor attributes. Attribute-based standards in general recognize the variety of functions performed by vehicles and engines, which in turn can affect the kind of technology that is available to control emissions and reduce fuel consumption, or its effectiveness. Attributes that characterize differences in the design of vehicles, as well as differences in how the vehicles will be employed in-use, can be key factors in evaluating technological improvements for reducing CO
Heavy-duty combination tractors are built to move freight. The ability of a vehicle to meet a customer's freight transportation requirements depends on three major characteristics of the tractor: the gross vehicle weight rating (which along with gross combination weight rating (GCWR) establishes the maximum carrying capacity of the tractor and trailer), cab type (sleeper cabs provide overnight accommodations for drivers), and the tractor roof height (to mate tractors to trailers for the most fuel-efficient configuration). Each of these attributes impacts the baseline fuel consumption and GHG emissions, as well as the effectiveness of possible technologies, like aerodynamics, and is discussed in more detail below.
The first tractor characteristic to consider is payload which is determined by a tractor's GVWR and GCWR relative to the weight of the tractor, trailer, fuel, driver, and equipment. Class 7 trucks, which have a GVWR of 26,001-33,000 pounds and a typical GCWR of 65,000 pounds, have a lesser payload capacity than Class 8 trucks. Class 8 trucks have a GVWR of greater than 33,000 pounds and a typical GCWR of greater than 80,000 pounds, the effective weight limit on the federal highway system except in states with preexisting higher weight limits. Consistent with the recommendation in the National Academy of Sciences 2010 Report to NHTSA,
The agencies are not finalizing a single standard for both Class 7 and 8 tractors based on the payload carrying capabilities and assumed typical payload levels of Class 8 tractors alone, as that would quite likely have the perverse impact of increasing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Such a single standard would penalize Class 7 vehicles in favor of Class 8 vehicles. However, the greater capabilities of Class 8 tractors and their related greater efficiency when measured on a per ton-mile basis are only relevant in the context of operations where that greater capacity is needed. For many applications such as regional distribution, the trailer payloads dictated by the goods being carried are lower than the average Class 8 tractor payload. In those situations, Class 7 tractors are more efficient than Class 8 tractors when measured by ton-mile of actual freight carried. This is because the extra capabilities of Class 8 tractors add additional weight to vehicles that is only beneficial in the context of its higher capabilities. The existing market already selects for vehicle performance based on the projected payloads. By setting separate standards the agencies do not advantage or disadvantage Class 7 or 8 tractors relative to one another and continue to allow trucking fleets to purchase the vehicle most appropriate to their business practices.
The second characteristic that affects fuel consumption and GHG emissions is the relationship between the tractor cab roof height and the type of trailer used to carry the freight. The primary trailer types are box, flat bed, tanker, bulk carrier, chassis, and low boys. Tractor manufacturers sell tractors in three roof heights—low, mid, and high. The manufacturers do this to obtain the best aerodynamic performance of a tractor-trailer combination, resulting in reductions of GHG emissions and fuel consumption, because it allows the frontal area of the tractor to be similar in size to the frontal area of the trailer. In other words, high roof tractors are designed to be paired with a (relatively tall) box trailer while a low roof tractor is designed to pull a (relatively low) flat bed trailer. The baseline performance of
Tractor cabs typically can be divided into two configurations—day cabs and sleeper cabs. Line haul operations typically require overnight accommodations due to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration hours of operation requirements.
The agencies received comments from industry stakeholders (EMA, Allison Transmission, Bosch, and the Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency Leadership Group) and ICCT supporting the nine tractor regulatory subcategories proposed and did not receive any comments which supported an alternate classification. Thus, to account for the relevant combinations of these attributes, the agencies are adopting the classification scheme proposed, segmenting combination tractors into the following nine regulatory subcategories:
• Class 7 Day Cab With Low Roof
• Class 7 Day Cab With Mid Roof
• Class 7 Day Cab With High Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab With Low Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab With Mid Roof
• Class 8 Day Cab With High Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab With Low Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab With Mid Roof
• Class 8 Sleeper Cab With High Roof
Adjustable roof fairings are used today on what the agencies consider to be low roof tractors. The adjustable fairings allow the operator to change the fairing height to better match the type of trailer that is being pulled which can reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions during operation. As proposed, the agencies are treating tractors with adjustable roof fairings as low roof tractors that will tested with the fairing in its lowest position.
In developing the final standards for Class 7 and 8 tractors and for the engines used in these tractors, the agencies have evaluated the current levels of emissions and fuel consumption, the kinds of technologies that could be utilized by truck and engine manufacturers to reduce emissions and fuel consumption from tractors and associated engines, the necessary lead time, the associated costs for the industry, fuel savings for the consumer, and the magnitude of the CO
The agencies are finalizing the following standards for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors in Table 0-1, using the subcategorization approach that was proposed. As explained below in Section III, EPA has determined that there is sufficient lead time to introduce various tractor and engine technologies into the fleet starting in the 2014 model year, and is finalizing standards starting for that model year predicated on performance of those technologies. EPA is finalizing more stringent tractor standards for the 2017 model year which reflect the CO
NHTSA is finalizing Class 7 and 8 tractor fuel consumption standards that are voluntary standards in the 2014 and 2015 model years and become mandatory beginning in the 2016 model year, as required by the lead time within EISA. The 2014 and 2015 model year standards are voluntary in that manufacturers are not subject to them unless they opt-in to the standards.
As explained more fully in Section III and Chapter 2 of the RIA, EPA and NHTSA are not adopting more stringent tractor standards for 2014-2017 MY. The final tractor standards are based on
The
Based on our analysis, the 2017 model year standards for combination tractors and engines represent up to a 23 percent reduction in CO
EPA is adopting GHG standards and NHTSA is adopting fuel consumption standards for new heavy-duty engines. This section discusses the standards for engines used in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and also provides some overall background information. We also note that the agencies are adopting standards for heavy-duty engines used in vocational vehicles. However, as explained further below, compliance with the standards would be measured using different test procedures, corresponding with actual vehicle use, depending on whether the vehicle in which the engine is installed is a Class 7 and 8 combination tractor or a vocational vehicle.
The heavy-duty engine standards vary depending on the type of vehicle in which they are installed, as well as whether the engines are compression ignition or spark ignition. The agencies are adopting separate engine fuel consumption and GHG emissions standards for engines installed in combination tractors versus engines installed in vocational vehicles. Also, for the purposes of the GHG engine emissions and engine fuel consumption standards, the agencies are adopting engine subcategories that match EPA's
Heavy heavy-duty diesel and medium heavy-duty diesel engines are used today in combination tractors. The following section refers to the engine standards for these types of engines. This section does not cover gasoline or light heavy-duty diesel engines because they are not used in combination tractors.
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed CO
The agencies proposed to require diesel engine manufacturers to achieve, on average, a three percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO
The agencies also proposed to require diesel engine manufacturers to achieve, on average, a six percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO
The agencies proposed that the MHD and HHD diesel engine CO
The agencies received comments from EMA, Navistar, Cummins, ACEEE, Center for Biological Diversity, Detroit Diesel Corporation, American Lung Association, and the Union of
In light of the above comments, the agencies re-evaluated the technical basis for the heavy-duty engine standards. The baseline HHD diesel engine performance in 2010 model year on the SET is estimated at 490 g CO
However, in recognizing that some manufacturers have engines that would not meet the standard even after applying technologies that improve GHG emissions and fuel consumption by three percent, the agencies are finalizing both the proposed ABT provisions for these engines and also an optional alternate engine standard for 2014 model year, described in more detail below. We believe that concerns expressed by Navistar regarding the 2014 MY standards will be addressed by this alternative standard. The agencies also continue to believe that the 2017 MY standards are achievable using the above approaches and, in the case of SET certified engines, turbocompounding. While Navistar commented that the 2017 MY standard may be challenging because not all manufacturers are presently producing the technologies that may be required to meet the standards, the agencies believe that since manufacturers that may require turbocompounding to meet the standards will not have to do so until 2017 MY, there will be sufficient lead time for all manufacturers to introduce this technology. As noted above, by MY 2017 all MHD and HHD engines installed in combination tractors should have gone through a redesign during which all needed technology can be applied. We note that we are finalizing these standards as proposed based on the assessment that most manufacturers (not just Navistar) will need to make improvements to existing engine systems in order to meet the standards. EPA's HD diesel engine CO
The agencies have also decided to remove NHTSA's proposed Pre-Certification Compliance Report requirement. Instead, manufacturers must submit their decision to opt into NHTSA's voluntary standards for the 2014 through 2016 model years as part of its certification process with EPA. Once a manufacturer opts into the NHTSA program it must stay in the program for all the subsequent optional model years. Manufacturers that opt in become subject to NHTSA standards for all regulatory categories. The declaration statement must be entered prior to or at the same time the manufacturer submits its first application for a certificate of conformity. NHTSA will begin tracking credits and debits beginning in the model year in which a manufacturer opts into its program.
Compliance with the CO
The agencies gave full consideration to the need for engine manufacturers to redesign and upgrade their engines during the MYs 2014-2017 to meet standards, and fully considered the cost-effectiveness of the standards and the available lead time. The final two-step CO
The agencies continue to believe the standards for MHD and HHD diesel engines installed in combination tractors are the most stringent technically feasible in the time frame established in this regulation. The standards will require a 3 percent reduction in engine fuel consumption and GHG emissions in 2014 MY based on improvements to engine components and aftertreatment systems. The 2017 MY standards will require a 6 percent reduction in fuel consumption and GHG emissions over a 2010 model year baseline and assumes the introduction, for some engines, of technologies such as turbocompounding. The standards, however, are not premised on the introduction of technologies that are still in development—such as Rankine bottoming cycle—since these approaches cannot be introduced without further technical development or engine re-design.
Additional discussion on technical feasibility is included in Section III below and in Chapter 2 of the RIA.
The agencies recognize, however, that the schedule of changes for the final standards may not be the most cost-effective one for all manufacturers. The agencies also sought comment as to whether an alternate phase-in schedule for the HD diesel engine standards for combination tractors should be considered. In developing the proposal, heavy-duty engine manufacturers stated that the phase-in of the GHG and fuel consumption standards should be aligned with the On Board Diagnostic (OBD)
In response, Cummins, Engine Manufacturers Association, and DTNA commented that their first choice was a delay in the OBD effective date for one year to the 2014 model year. The industry's second choice was to provide manufacturers with an optional GHG and fuel consumption phase-in that aligns their product development plans with their current plans to meet the OBD regulations for EPA and California in the 2013 and 2016 model years. These commenters argued that meeting the OBD regulation in the 2013 model year already poses a significant challenge, and that having to meet GHG and fuel consumption standards beginning in 2014 could require them to redesign and recertify their products just one year later. They argued that bundling design changes where possible can reduce the burden on industry for complying with regulations, so aligning the introduction of the OBD, GHG, and fuel consumption standards could help reduce manufacturers' burden for product development, validation and certification.
In order to provide additional flexibility for manufacturers looking to align their technology changes with multiple regulatory requirements, the agencies are finalizing an alternate “OBD phase-in” option for meeting the standards for MHD and HHD diesel engines installed in tractors (in addition to engines installed in vocational vehicles as noted below in Section II.D), which delivers equivalent CO
The technologies for the 2013 model year optional standard include a subset of technologies that could be used to meet the primary 2014 model year standard. The agencies believe this approach is appropriate because the shorter lead time provided for manufacturers selecting this option limits the technologies which can be applied. However, in order to maintain equivalent CO
Although the agencies believe that the standards for the HD diesel engines installed in combination tractors are generally appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible in the rulemaking time frame, we also recognize that when regulating a category of engines for the first time, there will be individual products that may deviate significantly from the baseline level of performance, whether because of a specific approach to criteria pollution control, or due to engine calibration for specific applications or duty cycles. In the current fleet of 2010 and 2011 model year engines used in combination tractors, NHTSA and EPA understand that there is a relatively small group of legacy engines that are up to approximately 25 percent worse than the average baseline for other engines. For this group of legacy MHD and HHD diesel engines installed in tractors, when compared to the typical performance levels of the majority of the engines in the fleet and the fuel consumption/GHG emissions reductions that the majority of engines would achieve through increased application of technology, the same reduction from the industry baseline may not be possible at reasonably comparable cost given the same amount of lead-time, because these products may require a total redesign in order to meet the standards. Manufacturers of the MHD and HHD diesel engines installed in tractors with atypically high baseline CO
To account for this possibility, the agencies requested comment in the NPRM on the establishment of an optional alternative MHD and HHD engine standard for those engines installed in combination tractors which would be set at 3 percent below a manufacturer's 2011 engine baseline emissions and fuel consumption, or alternatively, at 2 percent below a manufacturer's 2011 baseline. The agencies also requested comment on extending this optional standard one year (to the 2017 MY) for a single engine family at a 6 percent level below the 2011 baseline.
In comments to the NPRM, Navistar supported the alternative engine standard, but recommended that it be set at 2 percent below the manufacturer's 2011 baseline. They also supported the extension to 2017 MY at 6 percent. Navistar provided CBI in support of its comments. Volvo, DTNA, environmental groups, NGOs, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation opposed the optional engine standard, arguing that existing flexibilities are sufficient to allow compliance with the standards and that all manufacturers should be held to the same standards.
Based on the CBI submitted by Navistar, the agencies found that a large majority of the HD diesel engines used in Class 7 and 8 combination tractors were relatively close to the average baseline, with some above and some below, but also that some legacy MHD and HDD diesel engines were far enough away from the baseline that they could not meet the generally-applicable standards with application of technology that would be available for those specific engines by 2014. The agencies continue to believe that an interim alternative standard is needed for these products, and that an interim standard reflects a legitimate difference between products starting from different fuel consumption/GHG emitting baselines. As explained in the proposal, it is legally permissible to accommodate short term lead time constraints with alternative standards. Commenters did not dispute that there are legacy engine families with significantly higher CO
The agencies stress that this is a temporary and limited option being implemented to address diverse manufacturer needs associated with complying with this first phase of the regulations. As codified in 40 CFR 1036.620 and 49 CFR 535.5(d), this optional standard will be available only for the 2014 through 2016 model years, because we believe that manufacturers will have had ample opportunity to make appropriate changes to bring their product performance into line with the rest of the industry after that time. As proposed, the final rules require that manufacturers making use of these provisions for the optional standard would need to exhaust all credits available to this averaging set prior to using this flexibility and would not be able to generate emissions credits from other engines in the same regulatory averaging set as the engines complying using this alternate approach.
The agencies note again that manufacturers choosing to utilize this option in MYs 2014-2016 will have to make a greater relative improvement in MY 2017 than the rest of the industry, since they will be starting from a worse level—for compliance purposes, emissions from engines certified and sold at the three percent level will be averaged with emissions from engines certified and sold at more stringent levels to arrive at a weighted average emissions for all engines in the subcategory. Again, this option can only be taken if all other credit opportunities have been exhausted and the manufacturer still cannot meet the primary standards. If a manufacturer chooses this option to meet the EPA emission standards in the MY 2014-2016, and wants to opt into the NHTSA fuel consumption program in these same MYs it must follow the exact path followed under the EPA program utilizing equivalent fuel consumption standards. Since the NHTSA standards are optional in 2014, manufacturers may choose not to adopt either the alternative engine standard or the regular voluntary standard by not participating in the NHTSA program in 2014 and 2015.
Some commenters argued that manufacturers could game the standard by establishing an artificially high 2011 baseline emission level. This could be done, for example, by certifying an engine with high fuel consumption and GHG emissions that is either: (1) Not sold in significant quantities; or (2) later altered to emit fewer GHGs and consume less fuel through service changes. In order to mitigate this possibility, the agencies are requiring that the 2011 model year baseline must be developed by averaging emissions over all engines in an engine family certified and sold for that model year so as to prevent a manufacturer from developing a single high GHG output engine solely for the purpose of establishing a high baseline. As an alternative, if a manufacturer does not certify all engine families in an averaging set to the alternate standards, then the tested configuration of the engine certified to the alternate standard must have the same engine displacement and its rated power within 5 percent of the highest rated power of the baseline tested configuration. In addition, the tested configuration of the engine certified to the alternate standard must be a configuration sold to customers. These three requirements will prevent a manufacturer from producing an engine with an artificially high power rating and therefore produce artificially low grams of CO
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that EPA is to adopt emissions standards that are applicable for the useful life of the vehicle. The in-use standards that EPA is finalizing would apply to individual vehicles and engines. NHTSA is adopting an approach which does not include in-use standards.
EPA proposed that the in-use standards for heavy-duty engines installed in tractors be established by adding an adjustment factor to the full useful life emissions and fuel consumption results projected in the EPA certification process to address measurement variability inherent in comparing results among different laboratories and different engines. The agency proposed a two percent adjustment factor and requested comments and additional data during the proposal to assist in developing an appropriate factor level. The agency received additional data during the comment period which identified production variability which was not accounted for at proposal. Details on the development of the final adjustment factor are included in RIA Chapter 3. Based on the data received, EPA determined that the adjustment factor in the final rules should be higher than the proposed level of two percent. EPA is finalizing a three percent adjustment factor for the in-use standard to provide a reasonable margin for production and test-to-test variability that could result in differences between the initial emission test results and emission results obtained during subsequent in-use testing.
We are finalizing regulatory text (in § 1036.150) to allow engine manufacturers to used assigned
Manufacturers will be allowed to use an assigned additive DF of 0.0 g/bhp-hr for CO
EPA is also finalizing the proposed provisions requiring that the useful life for these engine and vehicles with respect to GHG emissions be set equal to the respective useful life periods for criteria pollutants. EPA is adopting provisions where the existing engine useful life periods, as included in Table II-6, be broadened to include CO
The agencies are finalizing a complete set of test procedures to evaluate fuel consumption and CO
We are finalizing as proposed separate engine and vehicle-based emission standards to achieve the goal of reducing emissions and fuel consumption for both combination tractors and engines. Engine manufacturers are subject to the engine standards while the Class 7 and 8 tractor manufacturers are required to install certified engines in their tractors. The tractor manufacturer is also subject to a separate vehicle-based standard which utilizes a vehicle simulation model to evaluate the impact of the tractor cab design to determine compliance with the tractor standard.
A simulation model, in general, uses various inputs to characterize a vehicle's properties (such as weight, aerodynamics, and rolling resistance) and predicts how the vehicle would behave on the road when it follows a driving cycle (vehicle speed versus time). On a second-by-second basis, the model determines how much engine power needs to be generated for the vehicle to follow the driving cycle as closely as possible. The engine power is then transmitted to the wheels through transmission, driveline, and axles to move the vehicle according to the driving cycle. The second-by-second fuel consumption of the vehicle, which corresponds to the engine power demand to move the vehicle, is then calculated according to a fuel consumption map in the model. Similar to a chassis dynamometer test, the second-by-second fuel consumption is aggregated over the complete drive cycle to determine the fuel consumption of the vehicle.
Consistent with the proposal, NHTSA and EPA are finalizing a procedure to evaluate fuel consumption and CO
The GEM is designed to focus on the inputs most closely associated with fuel consumption and CO
EPA has validated the GEM based on the chassis test results from two combination tractors tested at Southwest Research Institute. The validation work conducted on this vehicle was representative of the other Class 7 and 8 tractors. Many aspects of one tractor configuration (such as the engine, transmission, axle configuration, tire sizes, and control systems) are similar to those used on the manufacturer's sister models. For example, the powertrain configuration of a sleeper cab with any roof height is similar to the one used on a day cab with any roof height. Overall, the GEM predicted the fuel consumption and CO
After proposal, the agencies conducted a peer review of GEM version 1.0 which was proposed. In addition, we requested comment on all aspects of
The model also includes a new driver model, a simplified electric system model, and revised engine fuel maps to better reflect the 2017 model year engine standards. The model in the final rulemaking uses the targeted vehicle driving speed to estimate vehicle torque demand at any given time, and then the power required to drive the vehicle is derived to estimate the required accelerator and braking pedal positions. If the driver misses the vehicle speed target, a speed correction logic controlled by a PID controller is applied to adjust necessary accelerator and braking pedal positions in order to match targeted vehicle speed at every simulation time step. The enhanced driver model used in the final rulemaking with its feed-forward driver controls more realistically models driving behavior. The GEM v1.0, the proposed version of the model, had four individual components to model the electric system—starter, electrical energy system, alternator, and electrical accessory. For the final rulemaking, the GEM v2.0 has a single electric system model with a constant power consumption level. Based on comments received, the agencies revisited the 2017 model year proposed fuel maps, specifically the low load area, which was extrapolated during the proposal and (incorrectly) generated negative improvements. The agencies redeveloped the fuel maps for the final rulemaking to better predict the fuel consumption of engines in this area of the fuel consumption map. Details of the changes are included in RIA Chapter 4.
To demonstrate compliance, a Class 7 and 8 tractor manufacturer will measure the performance of specified tractor systems (such as aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance), input the values into the GEM, and compare the model's output to the standard. The rules require that a tractor manufacturer provide the inputs for each of following factors for each of the tractors it wishes to certify under CO
For the aerodynamic assessment, tire rolling resistance, and tractor weight reduction, the input values for the simulation model will be determined by the manufacturer through conducting tests using the test procedures finalized
Test metrics which are quantifiable and meaningful are critical for a regulatory program. The CO
This approach tracks the recommendations of the NAS report. The NAS panel concluded, in their report, that a load-specific fuel consumption metric is appropriate for HD trucks. The panel spent considerable time explaining the advantages of and recommending a load-specific fuel consumption approach to regulating the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks.
With the approach to compliance NHTSA and EPA are adopting, a default payload is specified for each of the tractor categories suggesting that a gram per mile metric with a specified payload and a gram per ton-mile metric would be effectively equivalent. The primary difference between the metrics and approaches relates to our treatment of mass reductions as a means to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of a gram per mile metric, mass reductions are reflected only in the calculation of the work necessary to move the vehicle mass through the drive cycle. As such it directly reduces the gram emissions in the numerator since a vehicle with less mass will require less energy to move through the drive cycle leading to lower CO
The aerodynamic drag of a vehicle is determined by the vehicle's coefficient of drag (Cd), frontal area, air density and speed. As noted in the NPRM, quantifying truck aerodynamics as an input to the GEM presents technical challenges because of the proliferation of vehicle configurations, the lack of a clearly preferable standardized test method, and subtle variations in measured aerodynamic values among various test procedures. Class 7 and 8 tractor aerodynamics are currently developed by manufacturers using a range of techniques, including wind tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamics, and constant speed tests.
Consistent with our discussion at proposal, we believe a broad approach allowing manufacturers to use these multiple different test procedures to demonstrate aerodynamic performance of its tractor fleet is appropriate given that no single test procedure is superior in all aspects to other approaches. Allowing manufacturers to use multiple test procedures and modeling coupled with good engineering judgment to determine aerodynamic performance is consistent with the current approach used in determining representative road load forces for light-duty vehicle testing (40 CFR 86.129-00(e)(1)). However, we also recognize the need for consistency and a level playing field in evaluating aerodynamic performance.
The agencies are retaining an aerodynamic bin structure for the final rulemaking, but are adjusting the method used to determine the bins. To address the consistency and level playing field concerns, NHTSA and EPA proposed that manufacturers use a two-part screening approach for determining the aerodynamic inputs to the GEM. The first part would have required the manufacturers to assign each vehicle aerodynamic configuration based on descriptions of vehicle characteristics to one of five aerodynamics bins created by EPA and NHTSA. The proposed assignment by bin would have fixed (by rule) the aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle. However, the agencies, while working with industry, concluded for the final rulemaking that an approach which identified a reference aerodynamic test method and a procedure to align results from other aerodynamic test procedures with the reference method is a simpler, more accurate approach than deciphering and interpreting written descriptions of aerodynamic components.
Therefore, we are finalizing an approach, as described in Section V.B.3.d and § 1037.501, which uses an
EPA and NHTSA recognize that wind conditions, most notably wind direction, have a greater impact on real world CO
As just noted, the agencies are adopting an approach for this final action where the manufacturer would determine a tractor's aerodynamic drag force using their own aerodynamic assessment tools and correlating the results back to the reference aerodynamic test method of enhanced coastdown testing. The manufacturer determines the appropriate predefined aerodynamic bin based on the correlated test results and then inputs the predefined Cd value for that aerodynamic bin into the GEM. Coefficient of drag and frontal area of the tractor-trailer combination go hand-in-hand to determine the force required to overcome aerodynamic drag. The agencies proposed that the Cd value would be a GEM input derived by the manufacturer and that the agencies would specify the vehicle's frontal area for each regulatory subcategory. The agencies sought and received comment recommending an alternate approach where the aerodynamic input tables (as shown in Table 0-7 and Table 0-8) represent the drag force as defined as Cd multiplied by the frontal area. Because both approaches are essentially equivalent and the use of CdA more directly relates back to the aerodynamic testing, the agencies are finalizing the use of CdA as recommended by manufacturers.
The agencies are finalizing aerodynamic technology bins which divide the wide spectrum of tractor aerodynamics into five bins (
The agencies had proposed five aerodynamic bins for each tractor regulatory subcategory. The agencies received comments from ATA, EMA/TMA, and Volvo indicating that this approach was not consistent with the aerodynamics of low and mid roof tractors. High roof tractors are consistently paired with box trailer designs, and therefore manufacturers can design the tractor aerodynamics as a tractor-trailer unit and target specific areas like the gap between the tractor and trailer. In addition, the high roof tractors tend to spend more time at high speed operation which increases the impact of aerodynamics on fuel consumption and GHG emissions. On the other hand, low and mid roof tractors are designed to pull variable trailer loads and shapes. They may pull trailers such as flat bed, low boy, tankers, or bulk carriers. The loads on flat bed trailers can range from rectangular cartons with tarps, to a single roll of steel, to a front loader. Due to these variables, manufacturers do not design unique low and mid roof tractor aerodynamics but instead use derivatives from their high roof tractor designs. The aerodynamic improvements to the bumper, hood, windshield, mirrors, and doors are developed for the high roof tractor application and then carried over into the low and mid roof applications. As mentioned above, the types of designs that would move high roof tractors from a Bin III to Bins IV and V include features such as gap reducers and integral roof fairings which would not be appropriate on low and mid roof tractors. The agencies considered and largely agree with these comments and are therefore finalizing only two aerodynamic bins for low and mid roof tractors. The agencies are reducing the number of bins to reflect the actual range of aerodynamic technologies effective in low and mid roof tractor applications. Thus, the agencies are differentiating the aerodynamic performance for low and mid roof applications into two bins—conventional and aerodynamic.
For high roof combination tractor compliance determination, a manufacturer would use the aerodynamic results determined through testing to establish the appropriate bin. The manufacturer would then input into GEM the Cd value specified for each bin as defined in Table II-7 and Table II-8. For example, if a manufacturer tests a Class 8 sleeper cab high roof tractor and the test produces a CdA value between 5.8 and 6.6, the manufacturer would assign this tractor to the Class 8 Sleeper Cab High Roof Bin III. The manufacturer would then use the Cd value identified for Bin III of 0.60 as the input to GEM.
The Cd values in Table II-7 and Table II-8 differ from proposal based on a change in the reference method (enhanced coastdown procedure) and additional testing conducted by EPA. Details of the test program and results are included in RIA Chapter 2.5.1.4.
The CdA values in Table II-8 are based on testing using the enhanced coastdown test procedures adopted for the final rulemaking, which includes aerodynamic assessment of the low and mid roof tractors without a trailer. The removal of the trailer significantly reduces the CdA value of mid roof tractors with tanker trailers because of the poor aerodynamic performance of the tanker trailer. The agencies developed the Cd input for each of the low and mid roof tractor bins to represent the Cd of the tractor, its frontal area, and the impact of the Cd value due to the trailer such that the GEM value is representative of a tractor-trailer combination, as it is for the high roof tractors.
NHTSA and EPA are finalizing as proposed that the tractor's tire rolling resistance input to the GEM be determined by either the tire manufacturer or tractor manufacturer using the test method adopted by the International Organization for Standardization, ISO 28580:2009.
EPA and NHTSA conducted additional evaluation testing on HD trucks tires used for tractors, and also for vocational vehicles. The agencies also received several comments on the suitability of low rolling resistance tires for various HD vehicle applications. The summary of the agencies' findings and a response to issues raised by commenters is presented in Section II.D(1)(a).
The agencies proposed that the tractor standards reflect improved CO
The agencies received comments on this approach from Volvo, ATA, MEMA, Navistar, American Chemistry Council, the Auto Policy Center, Iron and Steel Institute, Arvin Meritor, Aluminum Association, and environmental groups and NGOs. Volvo and ATA stated that not all fleets can use single wide tires and if this is the case the 400 pound weight reduction target cannot be met. Volvo stated that without the use of single wide drive tires, a 6x4 tractor will have a maximum weight reduction of 300 pounds if the customer selects all ten wheels to be outfitted with light weight aluminum wheels. A number of additional commenters—including American Chemistry Council, The Auto Policy Center, Iron and Steel Institute, Aluminum Association, Arvin Meritor, MEMA, Navistar, Volvo, and environmental and nonprofit groups—stated that manufacturers should be allowed to use additional light weight components in order to meet the tractor fuel consumption and CO
In addition, The American Auto Policy Center asked that manufacturers be allowed to use materials other than aluminum and high strength steel to comply with the regulations. DTNA asked that weight reduction due to engine downsizing be allowed to receive credit. Volvo requested that weight reductions due to changes in axle configuration be credited. They used the example of a customer selecting a 4 X 2 over a 6 X 4 axle tractor. In this case, they assert there would be a 1,000 pound weight savings from removing an axle.
As proposed, many of the material substitutions could have been considered as innovative technologies for tractors and hence eligible for off cycle credits (so that the commenters overstated that these technologies were `disallowed'). Nonetheless in response to the above summarized comments, the agencies evaluated whether additional materials and components could be used directly for compliance with the tractor weight reduction through the primary program (
TIAX, in their report to the NAS, cited information from Alcoa identifying several mass reduction opportunities from material substitution in the tractor cab components which were similar to the ones identified by the Aluminum Association in their comments to this rulemaking.
With regard to high strength steel, the Iron and Steel Institute found that the use of high strength steel and redesign can reduce the weight of light-duty trucks by 25 percent.
The agencies considered other materials such as plastic composites and magnesium substitutes but were not able to obtain weights for specific components made from these materials. We have therefore not included components made from these materials as possible substitutes in the primary program, but they may be considered through the innovative technology/off-cycle credits provision. We may consider including these materials as part of the primary compliance option in a subsequent regulation if data become available.
Based on this analysis, the agencies developed an expanded list of weight reduction opportunities for the final rulemaking that may be reflected in the GEM, as listed in Table II-9. The list includes additional components, but not materials, from those proposed. For high strength steel, the weight reduction value is equal to 10 percent of the presumed baseline component weight, as the agencies used a conservative value based on the DOE report. We recognize that there may be additional potential for weight reduction in new high strength steel components which combine the reduction due to the material substitution along with improvements in redesign, as evidenced by the studies done for light-duty vehicles. In the development of the high strength steel component weights, we are only assuming a reduction from material substitution and no weight reduction from redesign, since we do not have any data specific to redesign of heavy-duty components nor do we have a regulatory mechanism to differentiate between material substitution and improved design. We are finalizing for wheels that both aluminum and light weight aluminum are eligible to be used as light-weight materials. Aluminum, but not light-weight aluminum, can be used as a light-weight material for other components. The reason for this is that data were available for light weight aluminum for wheels but were not available for other components.
The agencies received comments on the proposal from the American Chemistry Council highlighting the role of plastics and composites in heavy-duty vehicles. As they stated, composites can be low density while having high strength and are currently used in applications such as oil pans and buses. The DOE mass reduction program demonstrated for heavy vehicles proof of concept designs for hybrid composite doors with an overall mass savings of 40 percent; 30 percent mass reduction of a hood system with carbon fiber sheet molding compound; 50 percent mass reduction from composite tie rods, trailing arms, and axles; and superplastically formed aluminum body panels.
With regard to Volvo's request that manufacturers be allowed to receive credit for trucks with fewer axles, the agencies recognize that vehicle options exist today which have less mass than other options. However, we believe the decisions to add or subtract such components will be made based on the intended use of the vehicle and not based on a crediting for the mass difference in our compliance program. It is not our intention to create a tradeoff between the right vehicle to serve a need (
EPA and NHTSA are specifying the baseline vehicle weight for each regulatory vehicle subcategory (including the tires, wheels, frame, and cab components) in the GEM in aggregate based on weight of vehicles used in EPA's aerodynamic test program, but allow manufacturers to specify the use of light-weight components. The GEM then quantifies the weight reductions based on the pre-determined weight of the baseline component minus the pre-determined weight of the component made from light-weight material. Manufacturers cannot specify the weight of the light-weight component themselves, only the material used in the substitute component. The agencies assume the baseline wheel and tire configuration contains dual tires with steel wheels, along with steel frame and cab components, because these represent the vast majority of new vehicle configurations today. The weight reduction due to replacement of components with light weight versions will be reflected partially in the payload tons and partially in reducing the overall weight of the vehicle run in the GEM. The specified payload in the GEM will be set to the prescribed payload plus one third of the weight reduction amount to recognize that approximately one third of the truck miles are travelled at maximum payload, as discussed below in the payload discussion. The other two thirds of the weight reduction will be subtracted from the overall vehicle weight prescribed in the GEM.
The agencies continue to believe that the 400 pound weight target is appropriate to use as a basis for setting the final combination tractor CO
Extended idling from Class 8 heavy-duty long haul combination tractors contributes to significant CO
Idling reduction technologies (IRT) are available to allow for driver comfort while reducing fuel consumptions and CO
The agencies are adopting a provision to allow manufacturers to provide an AES system which is active for only a portion of a vehicle's life. In this case, a discounted idle reduction value would be entered into GEM. A discussion of the calculation of a discounted IRT credit can be found in Section III. Additional details on the emission and fuel consumption reduction values are included in RIA Section 2.5.4.2.
The NPRM proposed to allow combination tractors that use vehicle speed limiters (VSL) to include the maximum governed speed value as an input to the GEM for purposes of determining compliance with the vehicle standards. The agencies also proposed not to assume the use of a mandatory vehicle speed limiter because of concerns about how to set a realistic application rate that avoids unintended consequences.
Both the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and New York State Department of Transportation and Environmental Conservation commented that the application of speed limiters should be used to set the tractor standards.
Many commenters (Cummins, Daimler, EMA/TMA, ATA, AAPC, NADA) supported the use of VSLs as an input to the GEM, but requested clarification of what the specific requirements would be to ensure the VSL setting would not be capable of being easily overridden. Cummins and Daimler requested that the final rules explicitly allow vehicle manufacturers to access and adjust the VSL control feature for setting the maximum governed speed, arguing that the diverse needs of the commercial vehicle industry warrant flexibility in electronic control features, and that otherwise supply chain issues
In addition to features governing the maximum vehicle speed, commenters requested adding other programmable flexibilities to mitigate potential drawbacks to VSLs. Cummins, DTNA,
ATA and EMA/TMA also requested that manufacturers be allowed to program a mileage based expiration into the VSL control feature, in order to preserve the value of vehicles for second owners who may require operation at higher speeds. ATA further commented that manufacturers should be allowed to account for additional GEM input benefits if the speed governor is reprogrammed to a lower speed within the useful life of the vehicle.
After carefully considering the comments, the agencies have decided, for these final rules, to retain most of the elements in the proposal. Manufacturers will be allowed to implement a fixed maximum governed vehicle speed through a VSL feature and to use the maximum governed vehicle speed as an input to the GEM for certification. Also consistent with the proposal, the agencies are not premising the final standards on the use of VSLs. The comments received from stakeholders did not address the agencies' concerns discussed in the proposal, specifically the risk of requiring VSL in situations that are not appropriate from an efficiency perspective because it may lead to additional vehicle trips to deliver the same amount of freight.
The agencies have decided to adopt commenters' suggestions to allow adjustable lower limits that can be set and governed by VSLs independent of the one governing the maximum certified speed limit to provide the desired flexibility requested by the trucking industry. We believe that this flexibility would not decrease the anticipated fuel consumption or CO
Both agencies also agree that manufacturers can provide a “soft top” and expiration features to be programmed into PCMs to provide additional flexibility for fleet owners and so that fleets who purchase used vehicles have the ability to have different VSL policies than the original owner of the vehicle. Although the agencies considered limiting the soft top maximum level due to safety and fuel consumption/GHG benefit concerns, we have decided to allow the soft top maximum level to be set to any level higher than the maximum speed governed by the VSL. This approach will provide drivers with the ability to better navigate through traffic. However, the agencies are requiring that manufacturers providing a soft top feature must design the system so it cannot be modified by the fleets and will not decrement the vehicle speed limit causing the vehicle to decelerate while the driver is operating a vehicle above the normal governed vehicle speed limit. For example, if a manufacturer designs a vehicle speed limiter that has a normal governed speed limiter setting of 62 mph, and a “soft top” speed limiter value of 65 mph, the algorithm shall not cause the vehicle speed to decrement causing the vehicle to decelerate while the driver is operating the vehicle at a speed greater that 62 mph (between 62 and 65 mph). The agencies are concerned that a forced deceleration when a driver is attempting to pass or maneuver could have an adverse impact on safety.
In using a soft top feature, a manufacturer will be required to provide to the agencies a functional description of the “soft top” control strategy including calibration values, the speed setting for both the hard limit and the soft top and the maximum time per day the control strategy could allow the vehicle to operate at the “soft top” speed limit at the time of certification. This information will be used to derive a factor to discount the VSL input used in the GEM to determine the fuel consumption and GHG emissions performance of the vehicle. The agencies also agree with comments that VSLs should be adjustable so as not to potentially limit a vehicle's resale value. However, manufacturers choosing the option to override the VSL after a specified number of miles would be required to discount the benefit of the VSL relative to the tractor's full lifetime miles. The VSL discount benefits for using soft-top and expiration features must be calculated using Equation II-1.
The agencies will require that the VSL algorithm be designed to assure that over the useful life of the vehicle that the vehicle will not operate in the soft top mode for more miles than would be expected based on the values used in Equation 0-1, as specified by the expiration factor and the soft top factor. In addition, any time the cumulative percentage of operation in the soft top mode (based on miles) exceeds the maximum ratio that could occur at the full lifetime mileage, or at the expiration mileage if used, the algorithm must not allow the vehicle to exceed the VSL value. In this case, the soft top feature remain disabled until the vehicle mileage reaches a point where the ratio no longer meets this condition.
In response to the comments about how the agencies will evaluate
The agencies are aware that some fleets/owners make changes to vehicles, such as installing different diameter tires, changing the axle (final drive) ratio and transmission gearing, such that a vehicle could travel at speeds higher than the speed limited by its VSL. Vehicles subject to FMCSA requirements must be in compliance with 49 CFR 393.82. The requirements apply to speedometers and states as follows:
Each bus, truck, and truck-tractor must be equipped with a speedometer indicating vehicle speed in miles per hour and/or kilometers per hour. The speedometer must be accurate to within plus or minus 8 km/hr (5 mph) at a speed of 80 km/hr (50 mph).
To facilitate adjustments for component changes affecting vehicle speed, manufacturers should provide a fleet/owner with the means to do so unless the adjustments would affect the VSL setting or operation.
DTNA and ATA additionally requested that the agencies ensure that any VSL provisions adopted under the GHG emissions and fuel efficiency rules align with existing NHTSA standards. The agencies agree and note that there are no existing standards for a VSL outside of this current rulemaking activity. However, NHTSA has announced its intent to publish a proposal in 2012 for a VSL.
As discussed above, the agencies are adopting methodologies that manufacturers will use to quantify the values input into the GEM for these factors affecting vehicle efficiency: Coefficient of Drag, Tire Rolling Resistance Coefficient, Weight Reduction, Vehicle Speed Limiter, and Extended Idle Reduction Technology. The other aspects of the vehicle configuration are fixed within the model and are not varied for the purpose of compliance. The defined inputs include the tractor-trailer combination curb weight, payload, engine characteristics, and drivetrain for each vehicle type, and others.
The GEM simulation model uses various inputs to characterize a vehicle's configuration (such as weight, aerodynamics, and rolling resistance) and predicts how the vehicle would behave on the road when it follows a driving cycle (vehicle speed versus time). As noted by the 2010 NAS Report,
The agencies proposed a modified version of the California ARB Heavy Heavy-duty Truck 5 Mode Cycle
The agencies received comment from NACAA recommending an increase in the high speed cruise cycle speed from the proposed value of 65 mph to 75 mph because trucks travel at higher speeds. The agencies analyzed the urban and rural interstate truck speed limits in each state to determine the national average truck speed limit. State interstate speed limits for trucks vary between 55 and 75 mph, depending on the state.
The agencies also received comments from Allison which disagreed with proposed drive cycles for combination tractors because the cycles did not account for external factors such as grades, wind, traffic condition,
Allison referred the agencies to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and SmartWay program to review the amount of time long-haul vehicles spend on the highway. They believe the steady state highway speeds are overestimated. Data provided by Allison indicates that day cabs spend only 14 percent of miles traveling at speeds greater than 60 mph. NHTSA and EPA recognize that there is a variation in the amount of miles day cabs travel under different operations. As described above, the agencies are adopting an approach where tractors which operate like vocational vehicles may be regulated as such in the HD program. Thus, these day cabs will have a drive cycle weighting representative of vocational vehicles with more weighting on the transient operation and less on the highway speed operation.
For proposal, EPA and NHTSA relied on the EPA MOVES analysis of Federal Highway Administration data to develop the mode weightings to characterize typical operations of heavy-duty trucks, per Table II-10 below.
As proposed, NHTSA and EPA are adopting provisions so that the tractor performance in the GEM is judged assuming the tractor is pulling a standardized trailer. The agencies did not receive any adverse comments related to this approach. The agencies believe that an assessment of the tractor fuel consumption and CO
The total weight of the tractor-trailer combination is the sum of the tractor curb weight, the trailer curb weight, and the payload. The total weight of a vehicle is important because it in part determines the impact of technologies, such as rolling resistance, on GHG emissions and fuel consumption. In this final action, the agencies are specifying each of these aspects of the vehicle, as proposed.
In use, trucks operate at different weights at different times during their operations. The greatest freight transport efficiency (the amount of fuel required to move a ton of payload) would be achieved by operating trucks at the maximum load for which they are designed all of the time. However, logistics such as delivery demands which require that trucks travel without full loads, the density of payload, and the availability of full loads of freight limit the ability of trucks to operate at their highest efficiency all the time. M.J. Bradley analyzed the Truck Inventory and Use Survey and found that
As described above, the amount of payload that a tractor can carry depends on the category (or GVWR and GCWR) of the vehicle. For example, a typical Class 7 tractor can carry less payload than a Class 8 tractor. For proposal, the agencies used the Federal Highway Administration Truck Payload Equivalent Factors using Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) and Vehicle Travel Information System data to determine the proposed payloads. FHWA's results found that the average payload of a Class 8 vehicle ranged from 36,247 to 40,089 pounds, depending on the average distance travelled per day.
The agencies developed the proposed tractor curb weight inputs from actual tractor weights measured in two of EPA's test programs and based on information from the manufacturers. The proposed trailer curb weight inputs were derived from actual trailer weight measurements conducted by EPA and weight data provided to ICF International by the trailer manufacturers.
The agencies received comments from UMTRI and ATA regarding the values assumed for the combination tractor weights. UMTRI recommended using 80,000 pounds for the total weight for tractor-trailer combinations. ATA based on their analysis of the Federal Highway Administration's Long Term Pavement Database, recommended 5,000 to 10,000 pound payload for Class 7 tractors and 25,000 to 30,000 pounds for Class 8 tractors. ATA also determined from the same database that 20 percent of tractor miles are empty, 67 percent cube-out, and 13 percent weigh-out. The agencies are adopting the proposed tractor-trailer weights because we do not have strong evidence to select other values and because changing the assumed values would not change the impact on GHG emissions or fuel consumption of the technologies included in this phase of the HD program (the relative stringency of the standards and the projected emission reductions do not change with assumed payload). NHTSA and EPA intend to continue evaluating additional sources of weight information in future phases of the program.
Details of the final individual weight inputs by regulatory category, as shown in Table II-11, are included in RIA Chapter 3.
The agencies' assessment at proposal of the current vehicle configuration process at the truck dealer's level was that the truck companies provide tools to specify the proper drivetrain matched to the buyer's specific circumstances. These dealer tools allow a significant amount of customization for drive cycle and payload to provide the best specification for each individual customer. The agencies are not seeking to disrupt this process. Optimal drivetrain selection is dependent on the engine, drive cycle (including vehicle speed and road grade), and payload. Each combination of engine, drive cycle, and payload has a single optimal transmission and final drive ratio. The agencies received comments from ArvinMeritor and ICCT which suggested that the agencies incorporate the actual drivetrain configuration (axle configuration, driveline efficiency, and transmission) into the GEM. The agencies continue to believe, and therefore are adopting as proposed, that it is appropriate to specify the engine's fuel consumption map, drive cycle, and payload; therefore, it makes sense to also specify the drivetrain that matches.
As proposed, the agencies are defining the engine characteristics used in the GEM, including the fuel consumption map which provides the fuel consumption at hundreds of engine speed and torque points. If the agencies did not standardize the fuel map, then a tractor that uses an engine with emissions and fuel consumption better than the standards would require fewer vehicle reductions than those technically feasible reductions reflected in the final standards. The agencies are finalizing two distinct fuel consumption maps for use in the GEM. The first fuel
The HD engine test procedure consists of two primary aspects—a duty cycle and a metric to evaluate the emissions and fuel consumption.
EPA proposed that the GHG emission standards for heavy-duty engines under the CAA would be expressed as g/bhp-hr while NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards under EISA, in turn, be represented as gal/100 bhp-hr. The NAS panel did not specifically discuss or recommend a metric to evaluate the fuel consumption of heavy-duty engines. However, as noted above they did recommend the use of a load-specific fuel consumption metric for the evaluation of vehicles.
The agencies believe it is appropriate to set standards based on a single test procedure, either the Heavy-duty FTP or SET, depending on the primary expected use of the engine. This approach differs from EPA's criteria pollutant standards for engines which currently require that manufacturers demonstrate compliance over the transient FTP cycle; over the steady-state SET procedure; and during not-to-exceed testing. EPA created this multi-layered approach to criteria emissions control in response to engine designs that optimized operation for lowest fuel consumption at the expense of very high criteria emissions when operated off the regulatory cycle. EPA's use of multiple test procedures for criteria pollutants helps to ensure that manufacturers calibrate engine systems for compliance under all operating conditions. We are not concerned if manufacturers further calibrate engines off-cycle to give better in-use fuel consumption while maintaining compliance with the criteria emissions standards as such calibration is entirely consistent with the goals of our joint program. Further, we believe that setting GHG and fuel consumption standards based on both transient and steady-state operating conditions for all engines could lead to undesirable outcomes.
It is critical to set standards based on the most representative test cycles in order for performance in-use to obtain the intended (and feasible) air quality and fuel consumption benefits. Tractors spend the majority of their operation at steady state conditions, and will obtain in-use benefit of technologies such as turbocompounding and other waste heat recovery technologies during this kind of typical engine operation. Turbocompounding is a very effective approach to lower fuel consumption under steady driving conditions typified by combination tractor trailer operation and is well reflected in testing over the SET test procedure. However, when used in driving typified by transient operation as we expect for vocational vehicles and as is represented by the Heavy-duty FTP, turbocompounding shows very little benefit. Setting an emission standard based on the Heavy-duty FTP for engines intended for use in combination tractor trailers could lead manufacturers to not apply turbocompounding even though it can be a highly cost effective means to reduce GHG emissions and lower fuel consumption. (It is for this reason that turbocompounding is not part of the technology basis for MHD or HHD engines installed in vocational vehicles.)
The agencies proposed that engines installed in tractors demonstrate compliance with the CO
The current non-GHG emissions engine test procedures also require the development of regeneration emission rates and frequency factors to account for the emission changes during a regeneration event (40 CFR 86.004-28). EPA and NHTSA proposed not to include these emissions from the calculation of the compliance levels over the defined test procedures. Cummins and Daimler supported this approach and stated that sufficient incentives already exist for manufacturers to limit regeneration frequency. Conversely, Volvo opposed the omission of IRAF requirements for CO
At proposal, we considered including regeneration in the estimate of fuel consumption and GHG emissions and decided not to do so for two reasons.
In the proposal, the agencies considered proposing a chassis-based vehicle test to evaluate Class 7 and 8 tractors based on a laboratory test of the engine and vehicle together. A “chassis dynamometer test” for heavy-duty vehicles would be similar to the Federal Test Procedure used today for light-duty vehicles.
However, the agencies decided not to propose the use of a chassis test procedure to demonstrate compliance for tractor standards due to the significant technical hurdles to implementing such a program by the 2014 model year. The agencies recognize that such testing requires expensive, specialized equipment that is not yet widespread within the industry. The agencies have only identified approximately 11 heavy-duty chassis sites in the United States today and rapid installation of new facilities to comply with model year 2014 is not possible.
In addition, and of equal if not greater importance, because of the enormous numbers of vehicle configurations that have an impact on fuel consumption, we do not believe that it would be reasonable to require testing of many combinations of tractor model configurations on a chassis dynamometer. The agencies evaluated the options available for one tractor model (provided as confidential business information from a truck manufacturer) and found that the company offered three cab configurations, six axle configurations, five front axles, 12 rear axles, 19 axle ratios, eight engines, 17 transmissions, and six tire sizes—where each of these options could impact the fuel consumption and CO
The agencies received comments from ACEEE and UCS supporting a full vehicle testing approach, but these commenters recognized the difficulties in doing this in the first phase of the HD program. The agencies maintain that the full vehicle testing on chassis dynamometers is not feasible in the timeframe of this rulemaking, although we believe such an approach may be appropriate in the future, if more testing facilities become available and if the agencies are able to address the complexity of tractor configurations issue described above.
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing four flexibility provisions specifically for heavy-duty tractor and engine manufacturers, as discussed in Section IV below. These are an averaging, banking and trading program for emissions and fuel consumption credits, as well as provisions for early credits, advanced technology credits, and credits for innovative vehicle or engine technologies which are not included as inputs to the GEM or are not demonstrated on the engine SET test cycle. With the exception of the advanced technology credits, credits generated under these provisions can only be used within the same averaging set which generated the credit (for example, credits generated by HD engines installed in tractors can only be used by HD engines). EPA is also adopting a N
EPA and NHTSA are not adopting greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards for small tractor or engine manufacturers meeting the Small Business Administration (SBA) size criteria of a small business as described in 13 CFR 121.201.
The agencies have identified two entities that fit the SBA size criterion of a small business.
To ensure that the agencies are aware of which companies would be exempt, we are requiring that such entities submit a declaration to EPA and NHTSA containing a detailed written description of how that manufacturer qualifies as a small entity under the provisions of 13 CFR 121.201.
The primary elements of the EPA and NHTSA programs for complete HD pickups and vans are presented in this section. These provisions also cover optional chassis certification of incomplete HD vehicles and of Class 4 and 5 vehicles, as discussed in detail in Section V.B(1)(e). Section II.C(1) explains the form of the CO
About 90 percent of Class 2b and 3 vehicles are pickup trucks, passenger vans, and work vans that are sold by the original equipment manufacturers as complete vehicles, ready for use on the road. In addition, most of these
Three of these commonalities are especially significant: (1) Over 95 percent of the HD pickups and vans sold in the United States are produced by Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler—three companies with large light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck sales in the United States, (2) these companies typically base their HD pickup and van designs on higher sales volume light-duty truck platforms and technologies, often incorporating new light-duty truck design features into HD pickups and vans at their next design cycle, and (3) at this time most complete HD pickups and vans are certified to vehicle-based rather than engine-based EPA standards. There is also the potential for substantial GHG and fuel consumption reductions from vehicle design improvements beyond engine changes (such as through optimizing aerodynamics, weight, tires, and accessories), and the manufacturer is generally responsible for both engine and vehicle design. All of these factors together suggest that it is appropriate and reasonable to set standards for the vehicle as a whole, rather than to establish separate engine and vehicle GHG and fuel consumption standards, as is being done for the other heavy-duty categories. This approach for complete vehicles is consistent with Recommendation 8-1 of the NAS Report, which encourages the regulation of “the final stage vehicle manufacturers since they have the greatest control over the design of the vehicle and its major subsystems that affect fuel consumption.” There was consensus in the public comments supporting this approach.
In setting heavy-duty vehicle standards it is important to take into account the great diversity of vehicle sizes, applications, and features. That diversity reflects the variety of functions performed by heavy-duty vehicles, and this in turn can affect the kind of technology that is available to control emissions and reduce fuel consumption, and its effectiveness. EPA has dealt with this diversity in the past by making weight-based distinctions where necessary, for example in setting HD vehicle standards that are different for vehicles above and below 10,000 lb GVWR, and in defining different standards and useful life requirements for light-, medium-, and heavy-heavy-duty engines. Where appropriate, distinctions based on fuel type have also been made, though with an overall goal of remaining fuel-neutral.
The joint EPA GHG and NHTSA fuel economy rules for light-duty vehicles accounted for vehicle diversity in that segment by basing standards on vehicle footprint (the wheelbase times the average track width). Passenger cars and light trucks with larger footprints are assigned numerically higher target levels for GHGs and numerically lower target levels for fuel economy in acknowledgement of the differences in technology as footprint gets larger, such that vehicles with larger footprints have an inherent tendency to burn more fuel and emit more GHGs per mile of travel. Using a footprint-based attribute to assign targets also avoids interfering with the ability of the market to offer a variety of products to maintain consumer choice.
In developing this rulemaking, the agencies emphasized creating a program structure that would achieve reductions in fuel consumption and GHGs based on how vehicles are used and on the work they perform in the real world, consistent with the NAS report recommendations to be mindful of HD vehicles' unique purposes. Despite the HD pickup and van similarities to light-duty vehicles, we believe that the past practice in EPA's heavy-duty program of using weight-based distinctions in dealing with the diversity of HD pickup and van products is more appropriate than using vehicle footprint. Work-based measures such as payload and towing capability are key among the things that characterize differences in the design of vehicles, as well as differences in how the vehicles will be used. Vehicles in this category have a wide range of payload and towing capacities. These work-based differences in design and in-use operation are the key factors in evaluating technological improvements for reducing CO
Towing, on the other hand, does not directly factor into test weight as nothing is towed during the test. Hence only the higher curb weight caused by heavier truck components would play a role in affecting measured test results. However towing capacity can be a significant factor to consider because HD pickup truck towing capacities can be quite large, with a correspondingly large effect on design.
We note too that, from a purchaser perspective, payload and towing capability typically play a greater role than physical dimensions in influencing purchaser decisions on which heavy-duty vehicle to buy. For passenger vans, seating capacity is of course a major consideration, but this correlates closely with payload weight.
Although heavy-duty vehicles are traditionally classified by their GVWR, we do not believe that GVWR is the best weight-based attribute on which to base GHG and fuel consumption standards for this group of vehicles. GVWR is a function of not only payload capacity but of vehicle curb weight as well; in fact, it is the simple sum of the two. Allowing more GHG emissions from vehicles with higher curb weight tends to penalize lightweighted vehicles with comparable payload capabilities by making them meet more stringent standards than they would have had to meet without the weight reduction. The same would be true for another common weight-based measure, the gross vehicle combination weight, which adds the maximum combined towing and payload weight to the curb weight.
Similar concerns about using weight-based attributes that include vehicle curb weight were raised in the EPA/NHTSA proposal for light-duty GHG and fuel economy standards: “footprint-based standards provide an incentive to use advanced lightweight materials and structures that would be discouraged by weight-based standards”, and “there is less risk of `gaming' (artificial manipulation of the attribute(s) to achieve a more favorable target) by increasing footprint under footprint-based standards than by increasing vehicle mass under weight-based standards—it is relatively easy for a manufacturer to add enough weight to a vehicle to decrease its applicable fuel economy target a significant amount, as compared to increasing vehicle footprint” (74 FR 49685, September 28,
After taking these considerations into account, EPA and NHTSA proposed to set standards for HD pickups and vans based on the proposed “work factor” attribute that combines vehicle payload capacity and vehicle towing capacity, in pounds, with an additional fixed adjustment for four-wheel drive (4wd) vehicles. This adjustment accounts for the fact that 4wd, critical to enabling the many off-road heavy-duty work applications, adds roughly 500 lb to the vehicle weight. There was consensus in the public comments supporting this attribute, and the agencies are adopting it as proposed. Target GHG and fuel consumption standards will be determined for each vehicle with a unique work factor (analogous to a target for each discrete vehicle footprint in the light-duty vehicle rules). These targets will then be production weighted and summed to derive a manufacturer's annual fleet average standard for its heavy-duty pickups and vans. Widespread support for the proposed work factor-based approach to standards and fleet average approach to compliance was expressed in the comments we received.
To ensure consistency and help preclude gaming, we are finalizing the proposed provision that payload capacity be defined as GVWR minus curb weight, and towing capacity as GCWR minus GVWR. For purposes of determining the work factor, GCWR is defined according to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J2807 APR2008, GVWR is defined consistent with EPA's criteria pollutants program, and curb weight is defined as in 40 CFR 86.1803-01. Based on analysis of how CO
We note that payload/towing-dependent gram per mile and gallon per 100 mile standards for HD pickups and vans parallel the gram per ton-mile and gallon per 1,000 ton-mile standards being finalized for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors and for vocational vehicles. Both approaches account for the fact that more work is done, more fuel is burned, and more CO
These attribute-based CO
The agencies are finalizing standards based on a technology analysis performed by EPA to determine the appropriate HD pickup and van standards. This analysis, described in detail in RIA Chapter 2, considered:
• The level of technology that is incorporated in current new HD pickups and vans,
• The available data on corresponding CO
• Technologies that would reduce CO
• The effectiveness and cost of these technologies for HD pickup and vans,
• Projections of future U.S. sales for HD pickup and vans, and
• Forecasts of manufacturers' product redesign schedules.
Based on this analysis, EPA is finalizing the proposed CO
Described mathematically, EPA's and NHTSA's target standards are defined by the following
These targets are based on a set of vehicle, engine, and transmission technologies assessed by the agencies and determined to be feasible and appropriate for HD pickups and vans in the 2014-2018 timeframe. See Section III.B for a detailed analysis of these vehicle, engine and transmission technologies, including their feasibility, costs, and effectiveness in HD pickups and vans.
To calculate a manufacturer's HD pickup and van fleet average standard, the agencies are requiring that separate target curves be used for gasoline and diesel vehicles. The agencies estimate that in 2018 the target curves will achieve 15 and 10 percent reductions in CO
In written comments on the proposal, Cummins objected to setting separate diesel and gasoline vehicle standards, on the basis that it increases the burden for diesel engine manufacturers more than for gasoline engine manufacturers, and thereby could shift market share away from diesels. EMA argued for fuel-neutrality based on historical precedent and the fact that GHGs emitted by one type of engine are no different than those emitted by another type of engine. We believe that both engine types have roughly equivalent redesign burdens as evidenced by the feasibility and cost analysis in RIA Chapter 2. Also, even though the emissions and fuel consumption reductions are expressed from a common diesel/gasoline baseline in these final rules, the actual starting base for diesels is at a lower level than for gasoline vehicles. Other industry commenters, including those with sizeable diesel sales, expressed general support for the standards. The agencies agree that standards that do not distinguish between fuel types are generally preferable where technological or market-based reasons do not strongly argue otherwise. These technological differences exist presently between gasoline and diesel engines for GHGs, as described above. The agencies emphasize, however, that they are not committed to perpetuating separate GHG standards for gasoline and diesel heavy-duty vehicles and engines, and expect to reexamine the need for separate gasoline/diesel standards in the next rulemaking.
Environmental groups and others commented that the proposed standards were not stringent enough, citing the heavy-duty vehicle NAS study finding that technologies such as hybridization are feasible. However, in the ambitious timeframe we are focusing on for these rules, targeting as it does technologies implementable in the HD pickup and van fleet starting in 2014 and phasing in with normal product redesign cycles through 2018, our assessment shows that the standards we are establishing are appropriate. More advanced technologies considered in the NAS report would be appropriate for consideration in future rulemaking activity. Additional conventional technologies identified by commenters as promising in light-duty applications and potentially useful for HD applications are discussed in RIA chapter 2.
The NHTSA fuel consumption target curves and the EPA GHG target curves are equivalent. The agencies established the target curves using the direct relationship between fuel consumption and CO
It is expected that measured performance values for CO
EPA is finalizing the proposed provision that the GHG standards be phased in gradually over the 2014-2018 model years, with full implementation effective in the 2018 model year. Therefore, 100 percent of a manufacturer's vehicle fleet will need to meet a fleet-average standard that will become increasingly more stringent each year of the phase-in period. For both gasoline and diesel vehicles, this phase-in will be 15-20-40-60-100 percent of the model year 2018 stringency in model years 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018, respectively. These percentages reflect stringency increases from a baseline performance level for model year 2010, determined by the agencies based on EPA and manufacturer data. Because these vehicles are not currently regulated for GHG emissions, this phase-in takes the form of target line functions for gasoline and diesel vehicles that become increasingly stringent over the phase-in model years. These year-by-year functions have been derived in the same way as the 2018 function, by taking a percent reduction in CO
EPA is also providing manufacturers with an optional alternative implementation schedule in model years 2016 through 2018, equivalent to NHTSA's first alternative for standards that do not change over these model years, described below. Under this option the phase-in will be 15-20-67-67-67-100 percent of the model year 2019 stringency in model years 2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-2019, respectively. Table 0-13, above, provides the coefficients “a” and “b” for this manufacturer's alternative. As explained below, this alternative will provide roughly equivalent overall CO
Under the above-described alternatives, each manufacturer will need to demonstrate compliance with the applicable fleet average standard using that year's target function over all of its HD pickups and vans starting with its MY 2014 fleet of HD pickups and vans. No comments were received in support of an alternative approach that EPA requested comment on, involving phasing in an annually increasing percentage of each manufacturer's sales volume.
NHTSA is finalizing the proposed provision to allow manufacturers to select one of two fuel consumption standard alternatives for model years 2016 and later. Each manufacturer will select an alternative in its joint pre-model year report, discussed below, that is now required to be electronically submitted to the agencies; and, once selected, the alternative will apply for model years 2016 and later, and cannot be reversed. The first alternative will define a fuel consumption target line function for gasoline vehicles and a target line function for diesel vehicles that will not change for model years 2016 to 2018. The target line function coefficients are provided in Table II-13.
The second alternative will be equivalent to the EPA target line functions in each model year starting in 2016 and continuing afterwards. Stringency of fuel consumption standards will increase gradually for the 2016 and later model years. Relative to a model year 2010 unregulated baseline for both gasoline and diesel vehicles, stringency will be 40, 60, and 100 percent of the 2018 target line function in model years 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively. The stringency of the target line functions in the first alternative for model years 2016-2017-2018-2019 is 67-67-67-100 percent, respectively, of the 2019 stringency in the second alternative. The stringency of the first alternative was established so that a manufacturer with a stable production volume and mix over the model year 2016-2018 period could use Averaging, Banking and Trading to comply with either alternative and have a similar credit balance at the end of model year 2018 under the EPA and NHTSA programs.
NHTSA is finalizing the proposed provision that manufacturers may voluntarily opt into the NHTSA HD pickup and van program in model years 2014 or 2015. If a manufacturer elects to opt in to the program, it must stay in the program for all the optional model years. Manufacturers that opt in become subject to NHTSA standards for all regulatory categories. To opt into the program, a manufacturer must declare its intent to opt in to the program in its Pre-Model Year Report. The agencies have finalized new requirements for manufacturers to provide all early model declarations as a part of the pre-model year reports. See regulatory text for 49 CFR 535.8 for information related to the Pre-Model Year Report. A manufacturer would begin tracking credits and debits beginning in the model year in which they opt into the program. The handling of credits and debits would be the same as for the mandatory program.
For manufacturers that opt into NHTSA's HD pickup and van fuel consumption program in 2014 or 2015, the stringency would increase gradually each model year. Relative to a model year 2010 unregulated baseline, for both gasoline and diesel vehicles, stringency would be 15-20 percent of the model year 2019 target line function stringency (under the NHTSA first alternative) and 15-20 percent of the model year 2018 target line function stringency (under the NHTSA second alternative) in model years 2014-2015, respectively. The corresponding absolute standards target levels are provided in Figure II-2 and II-3, and the accompanying equations.
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing the proposed provision that HD pickup and van testing be conducted using the same heavy-duty chassis test procedures currently used by EPA for measuring criteria pollutant emissions from these vehicles, but with the addition of the highway fuel economy test cycle (HFET) currently required only for light-duty vehicle GHG emissions and fuel economy testing. Although the highway cycle driving pattern is identical to that of the light-duty test, other test parameters for running the HFET, such as test vehicle loaded weight, are identical to those used in running the current EPA Federal Test Procedure for complete heavy-duty vehicles.
The GHG and fuel consumption results from vehicle testing on the Light-duty FTP and the HFET will be weighted by 55 percent and 45 percent, respectively, and then averaged in calculating a combined cycle result. This result corresponds with the data used to develop the work factor-based CO
Another important parameter in ensuring a robust test program is vehicle test weight. Current EPA testing for HD pickup and van criteria pollutants is conducted with the vehicle loaded to its Adjusted Loaded Vehicle Weight (ALVW), that is, its curb weight plus ½ of the payload capacity. This is substantially more challenging than loading to the light-duty vehicle test condition of curb weight plus 300 pounds, but we believe that this loading for HD pickups and vans to ½ payload better fits their usage in the real world and will help ensure that technologies meeting the standards do in fact provide real world reductions. The choice is likewise consistent with use of an attribute based in considerable part on payload for the standard. We see no reason to set test load conditions differently for GHGs and fuel consumption than for criteria pollutants, and we are not aware of any new information (such as real world load patterns) since the ALVW was originally set this way that would support a change in test loading conditions, nor did any commenters provide such information. We are therefore using ALVW for test vehicle loading in GHG and fuel consumption testing.
Additional provisions for our final testing and compliance program are provided in Section V.B.
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing the proposed fleet average standards for new HD pickups and vans, based on a manufacturer's new vehicle fleet makeup. In addition, EPA is finalizing proposed in-use standards that apply to the individual vehicles in this fleet over their useful lives. The compliance provisions for these fleet average and in-use standards for HD pickups and vans are largely based on the recently promulgated light-duty GHG and fuel economy program, as described in detail in the proposal.
In the programs we are finalizing, each manufacturer will have a GHG standard and a fuel consumption standard unique to its new HD pickup and van fleet in each model year, depending on the load capacities of the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer, and on the U.S.-directed production volume of each of those models in that model year. Vehicle models with larger payload/towing capacities have individual targets at numerically higher CO
The fleet average standard with which the manufacturer must comply is based on its final production figures for the model year, and thus a final assessment of compliance will occur after production for the model year ends. Because compliance with the fleet average standards depends on actual test group production volumes, it is not possible to determine compliance at the time the manufacturer applies for and receives an EPA certificate of conformity for a test group. Instead, at certification the manufacturer will demonstrate a level of performance for vehicles in the test group, and make a good faith demonstration that its fleet, regrouped by unique vehicle configurations within each model type, is expected to comply with its fleet average standard when the model year is over. EPA will issue a certificate for the vehicles covered by the test group based on this demonstration, and will include a condition in the certificate that if the manufacturer does not comply with the fleet average, then production vehicles from that test group will be treated as not covered by the certificate to the extent needed to bring the manufacturer's fleet average into compliance. As in the light-duty program, additional “model type” testing will be conducted by the manufacturer over the course of the model year to supplement the initial test group data. The emissions and fuel consumption levels of the test vehicles will be used to calculate the production-weighted fleet averages for the manufacturer, after application of the appropriate deterioration factor to each result to obtain a full useful life value.
EPA and NHTSA do not currently anticipate notable deterioration of CO
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that EPA set emissions standards that are applicable for the useful life of the vehicle. The in-use standards that EPA is finalizing apply to individual vehicles. NHTSA is not adopting in-use standards because they are not required under EISA, and because it is not currently anticipated that there will be any notable deterioration of fuel consumption. For the EPA program, compliance with the in-use standard for individual vehicles and vehicle models will not impact compliance with the fleet average standard, which will be based on the production-weighted average of the new vehicles.
EPA is finalizing the proposed provision that the in-use standards for HD pickups and vans be established by adding an adjustment factor to the full useful life emissions and fuel consumption results used to calculate the fleet average. EPA is also finalizing the proposed provision that the useful life for these vehicles with respect to GHG emissions be set equal to their useful life for criteria pollutants: 11 years or 120,000 miles, whichever occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805-04(a)).
As discussed above, we are finalizing the proposed provision that certification test results obtained before and during the model year be used directly to calculate the fleet average emissions for assessing compliance with the fleet average standard. Therefore, this assessment and the fleet average standard itself do not take into account test-to-test variability and production variability that can affect measured in-use levels. For this reason, EPA is finalizing the proposed adjustment factor for the in-use standard to provide some margin for production and test-to-
As it does now for heavy-duty vehicle criteria pollutants, EPA will use a variety of mechanisms to conduct assessments of compliance with the in-use standards, including pre-production certification and in-use monitoring once vehicles enter customer service. The full useful life in-use standards apply to vehicles that have entered customer service. The same standards apply to vehicles used in pre-production and production line testing, except that deterioration factors are not applied.
This program contains substantial flexibility in how manufacturers can choose to implement the EPA and NHTSA standards while preserving their timely benefits for the environment and energy security. Primary among these flexibilities are the gradual phase-in schedule, alternative compliance paths, and corporate fleet average approach which encompasses averaging, banking and trading described above. Additional flexibility provisions are described briefly here and in more detail in Section IV.
As explained in Section II.C(3), we are finalizing the proposed provision that, at the end of each model year, when production for the model year is complete, a manufacturer calculate its production-weighted fleet average CO
A manufacturer whose fleet generates credits in a given model year will have several options for using those credits to offset emissions from other HD pickups and vans. These options include credit carry-back, credit carry-forward, and credit trading. These provisions exist in the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, and similar provisions are part of EPA's Tier 2 program for light-duty vehicle criteria pollutant emissions, as well as many other mobile source standards issued by EPA under the CAA. The manufacturer will be able to carry back credits to offset a deficit that had accrued in a prior model year and was subsequently carried over to the current model year, with a limitation on the carry-back of credits to three model years, consistent with the light-duty program. We are finalizing the proposed provision that, after satisfying any need to offset pre-existing deficits, a manufacturer may bank remaining credits for use in future years, with a limitation on the carry-forward of credits to five model years. We are also finalizing the proposed provision that manufacturers may certify their HD pickup and van fleet a year early, in MY 2013, to generate credits against the MY 2014 standards. This averaging, banking, and trading program for HD pickups and vans is discussed in more detail in Section IV.A. For reasons discussed in detail in that section, we are not finalizing any credit transferability to or from other credit programs or averaging sets.
Consistent with the President's May 21, 2010, directive to promote advanced technology vehicles and with the agencies' respective statutory authorities, we are adopting flexibility provisions that parallel similar provisions adopted in the light-duty program. These include credits for advance technology vehicles such as electric vehicles, and credits for innovative technologies that are shown by the manufacturer to provide GHG and fuel consumption reductions in real world driving, but not on the test cycle. See Section IV.B.
Heavy-duty vehicles serve a vast range of functions including service for urban delivery, refuse hauling, utility service, dump, concrete mixing, transit service, shuttle service, school bus, emergency, motor homes,
The agencies proposed that Class 4 pickup trucks although similar to Class 2b and 3 vehicles be included in the vocational vehicle category. Comments from EMA, Cummins, NTEA and Navistar supported the premise that Class 4 vehicles belong as part of the vocational vehicle program because they are specifically designed and engineered to meet vocational requirements. They stated that components such as transmissions, axles, frames, and tires differ from the similar pickup trucks and vans in the Class 2b and 3 market. We agree with commenters' arguments that there are a number of important differences between the Class 4 and Class 3 trucks it unreasonable to regulate Class 4 vehicles under the standards for heavy duty pickups and vans. As a result, we are keeping Class 4 vehicles in the vocational vehicle category, but are allowing the optional chassis certification of Class 4 and 5 vehicles. (See Section V.B(1)(e)).
As mentioned in Section I, vocational vehicles undergo a complex build process. Often an incomplete chassis is built by a chassis manufacturer with an engine purchased from an engine manufacturer and a transmission purchased from another manufacturer. A body manufacturer purchases an incomplete chassis which is then completed by attaching the appropriate features to the chassis.
The diversity in the vocational vehicle segment can be primarily attributed to the variety of vehicle bodies rather than to the chassis. For example, a body builder can build either a Class 6 bucket truck or a Class 6 delivery truck from the same Class 6 chassis. The aerodynamic difference between these two vehicles due to their bodies will lead to different baseline fuel consumption and GHG emissions. However, the baseline fuel consumption and emissions due to the components included in the common chassis (such as the engine, drivetrain, frame, and
The agencies face difficulties in establishing the baseline CO
Similar to combination tractors, the agencies proposed to set separate vehicle and engine standards for vocational vehicles. A number of comments were received on the proposal to regulate chassis and engine manufacturers. The agencies received comments from DTNA supporting the proposal to regulate the chassis manufacturer but not body manufacturers. While organizations like Cummins and ICCT expressed support for separate engine and vehicle standards, Navistar, Pew, and Volvo, in contrast, opposed separate engine and chassis standards, stating that separate engine standards disadvantages integrated truck/engine manufacturers and full vehicle standards should be required. Volvo asked that the standards include an alternative integrated standard as well as complete vehicle modeling and testing beginning in 2017. ACEEE and Sierra Club stated that the proposed standards and test procedures should move the agencies closer to full vehicle testing.
Although the agencies understand that full vehicle standards would allow integrated truck/engine manufacturers—such as electrified accessories and weight reduction—the agencies are finalizing separate standards for vocational vehicles that apply to chassis manufacturers and engine standards for engines installed in these vehicles that apply to engine manufacturers. The agencies continue to believe that it is not practical to regulate complete vocational vehicles for this first fuel consumption and GHG emissions program because of the size and complexity of the task associated with assessing the potential for fuel consumption and GHG emissions improvement for each of the myriad types of vocational vehicles. This issue is discussed further in comment responses found in sections 5 and 6.1.4 of the Response to Comment Document, as well as in the following section of the preamble. Thus, the agencies are finalizing a set of standards for the chassis manufacturers of vocational vehicles (but not the body builders) and for the manufacturers of HD engines used in vocational vehicles.
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed vehicle standards based on the agencies' assessment of the availability of low rolling resistance tires that could be applied generally to vocational vehicles across the entire category. The agencies considered the possibility of including other technologies in determining the proposed stringency of the vocational vehicle standards, such as aerodynamic improvements, but as discussed in the NPRM, tentatively concluded that such improvements would not be appropriate for basing vehicle standard stringency in this phase of the rulemaking.
The agencies received comments from the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association, Eaton, NRDC, NESCAUM, NACAA, ACEEE, ICCT, Navistar, Arvin Meritor, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others that technologies such as idle reduction, advanced transmissions, advanced drivetrains, weight reduction, hybrid powertrains, and improved auxiliaries provide opportunities to reduce fuel consumption from vocational vehicles. Commenters asked that the agencies establish regulations that would reflect performance of these technologies and essentially force their utilization.
The agencies assessed these technologies and have concluded that they may have the potential to reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions from at least certain vocational vehicles, but the agencies have not been able to estimate baseline fuel consumption and GHG emissions levels for each type of vocational vehicle and for each type of technology, given the wide variety of models and uses of vocational vehicles. For example, idle reduction technologies such as APUs and cabin heaters can reduce workday idling associated with vocational vehicles. However, characterizing idling activity for the vocational segment in order to quantify the benefits of idle reduction technology is complicated by the variety of duty cycles found in the sector. Idling in school buses, fire trucks, pickup trucks, delivery trucks, and other types of vocational vehicles varies significantly. Given the great variety of duty cycles and operating conditions of vocational vehicles and the timing of these rules, it is not feasible at this time to establish an accurate baseline for quantifying the expected improvements which could result from use of idle reduction technologies. Similarly, for advanced drivetrains and advanced transmissions determining a baseline configuration, or a set of baseline configurations, is extremely difficult given the variety of trucks in this segment. The agencies do not believe that we can legitimately base standard stringency on the use of technologies for which we cannot identify baseline configurations, because absent baseline emissions and baseline fuel consumption, the emissions reductions achieved from introduction of the technology cannot be quantified. For some technologies, such as weight
As the program progresses and the agencies gather more information, we expect to reconsider whether vocational vehicle standards for MYs 2019 and beyond should be based on the use of additional technologies besides low rolling resistance tires.
EPA is adopting CO
EPA is also adopting standards to control N
As discussed further below, the agencies are setting CO
The agencies received comments supporting the exclusion of recreational vehicles, emergency vehicles, school buses from the vocational vehicle standards. The commenters argued that these individual vehicle types were small contributors to overall GHG emissions and that tires meeting their particular performance needs might not be available by 2014. The agencies considered these comments and the agencies have met with a number of tire manufacturers to better understand their expectations for product availability for the 2014 model year. Based on our review of the information shared, we are convinced that tires with rolling resistance consistent with our final vehicle standards and meeting the full range of other performance characteristics desired in the vehicle market, including for RVs, emergency vehicles, and school buses, will be broadly available by the 2014 model year.
In the NPRM, the agencies defined tire rolling resistance as a frictional loss of energy, associated mainly with the energy dissipated in the deformation of tires under load that influences fuel efficiency and CO
The agencies explained that a typical Low Rolling Resistance (LRR) tire's attributes, compared to a non-LRR tire, would include increased tire inflation pressure; material changes; and tire construction with less hysteresis, geometry changes (
The agencies also explained that while LRR tires can be applied to vehicles in all MD/HD classes, they may have special potential for improving fuel efficiency and reducing CO
The agencies received many comments on the subject of tire rolling resistance as applied to vocational vehicles. Comments included suggestions for alternative test procedures; whether LRR tires should be applied to certain types of vocational vehicles and whether certain vehicles should be exempted from the vocational vehicle standards if the standards are based on the ability to use LRR tires; the appropriateness of the proposed standards; and compliance issues (discussed below in Section II.D.2.b.
Regarding whether LRR tires should be applied to certain types of vocational vehicles, the agencies received many comments from stakeholders, such as Daimler Trucks North America, Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association (FAMA), International Association of Fire Chiefs, National Ready Mix, National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), Spartan Motors, National Automobile Dealers Association, among others. There were comments regarding applicability of low rolling resistance tires to vocational vehicles based on LRR tire availability, suitability of the tires for the applications, fuel consumption and GHG emissions benefits and the appropriateness of standards. Many of these commenters focused particularly on the whether LRR tires would compromise the capability of emergency vehicles.
Regarding whether LRR tires are available in the market for certain vocational vehicles and whether the vocational vehicle standards were therefore appropriate and feasible, both Ford and AAPC stated that the proposed model-based requirement for Class 2b-8 vocational chassis appeared to require tires with rolling resistance values of approximately 8.0-8.1 kg/metric ton or better, and that limited data available for smaller diameter tires, such as light-truck (LT) tires used on many light heavy-duty trucks and vans, suggested that there exist few if any choices for tires that would comply. Given this concern about the availability of compliant tires, particularly in the case of tires smaller than 22.5″, during the proposed regulatory time frame, AAPC and Ford requested revisions to the requirement, or the modeling method, to establish different standards for vehicles
Since the NPRM, the agencies have conducted additional research on tire rolling resistance for medium- and heavy-duty applications. This research involved direct discussions with tire suppliers,
The agencies discussed many aspects of low rolling resistance tire technologies and their application to vocational vehicles with tire suppliers since publication of the NPRM. Several tire suppliers indicated to the agencies that low rolling resistance tires are currently available for vocational applications that would enable compliance with the proposed vocational vehicle standards, such as delivery vehicles, refuse vehicles, and other vocations. However, these conversations also made the agencies aware that availability of low rolling resistance tires varies by supplier. Some suppliers stated they focused their company resources on areas of the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle spectrum where fleet operators would see the most fuel efficiency benefits for the application of low rolling resistance technologies; specifically the long-haul, on-highway applications that drive many miles and use large amounts of fuel. These suppliers stated that this choice was driven by the significant capital investment that would be needed to improve tire rolling resistance across the relatively large number of product offerings in the vocational vehicle segment, based on the wide range of tire sizes, load ratings, and speed ratings, compared to the much narrower range of offerings for long-haul applications.
The agencies also discussed with tire suppliers the potential tire attribute tradeoffs that may be associated with incorporating designs that improve tire rolling resistance, given the driving patterns, environmental conditions, and on-road and off-road surface conditions that vocational vehicles are subjected to. Some vehicle manufacturer commenters had suggested that changes in tire tread block design that improve rolling resistance may adversely affect tire performance characteristics such as traction, resistance to tearing, and resistance to wear and damage from scrubbing on curbs and frequent tight radius turns that are important to customers for vocational vehicle performance. The suppliers agreed that providing tires unable to withstand these conditions or meet the vehicle application needs would adversely affect customer satisfaction and warranty expenses, and would have detrimental financial effects to their businesses. One supplier indicated that theoretically, tread-wear (tire life) could be compromised if suppliers choose to reduce the initial tire tread depth without any offsetting tire compound or design enhancements as the means to achieve rolling resistance reductions. That supplier argued that taking this approach could lead to more frequent tire replacements or re-treading of existing tire carcasses, and that the agencies should therefore take a total lifecycle view when evaluating the effects of driving rolling resistance reductions. That supplier also indicated that a correlation of a 20 percent reduction in rolling resistance achieved through tread depth reduction could lead to a 30 percent decrease in tread-life and 15 percent reduction in wet traction. The agencies note that when they inquired about potential `safety' related tradeoffs, such as traction (braking and handling) and tread wear when applying low rolling resistance technologies, tire suppliers which remain subject to safety standards regardless of this program, consistently responded that they would not produce a tire that compromises safety when fitted in its proper application.
In addition to the supplier discussions and evaluation of comments to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EPA conducted a series of tire rolling resistance tests on medium- and heavy-duty vocational vehicle tires. The testing measured the CRR of tires representing 16 different vehicle applications for Class 4-8 vocational vehicles. The testing included approximately 5 samples each of both steer and drive tires for each application. The tests were conducted by two independent tire test labs, Standards Testing Lab (STL) and Smithers-Rapra (Smithers).
Overall, a total of 156 medium- and heavy-duty tires
The test results for 88 commercial vocational vehicle tires (19.5″ and 22.5″ sizes) showed a test average CRR of 7.4 kg/metric ton, with results ranging from 5.1 to 9.8. To comply with the proposed vocational vehicle fuel consumption and GHG emissions standards using improved tire rolling resistance as the compliance strategy, a manufacturer would need to achieve an average tire CRR value of 8.1 kg/metric ton.
The test results for the 47 tires intended for tractor application showed an overall average of 6.9 kg/ton, the lowest overall average rolling resistance of the different tire applications tested.
Finally, the 21 LT tires intended for Class 4 vocational vehicles were comprised of two sizes; LT225/75R16 and LT245/75R16 with 11 and 10 samples tested, respectively. Some auto manufacturers have indicated that CRR values for tires fitted to these Class 4 vehicles typically have a higher CRR values than tires found on commercial vocational vehicles because of the smaller diameter wheel size and the ISO testing protocol.
Analysis of the EPA test data for all vocational vehicles, including LT tires, shows the test average CRR is 7.7 kg/metric ton with a standard deviation of 1.2 kg/metric ton. Review of the data thus shows that for each tire size and vehicle type, there are many tires available that would enable compliance with the proposed standards for vocational vehicles and tractors except for LT tires for Class 4 vocational vehicles where test results show the majority of these tires have CRR worse than 8.1 kg/metric ton.
The agencies also reviewed the CRR data from the tires that were tested at both the STL and Smithers laboratories to assess inter-laboratory and test machine variability. The agencies conducted statistical analysis of the data to gain better understanding of lab-to-lab correlation and developed an adjustment factor for data measured at each of the test labs. When applied, this correction factor showed that for 77 of the 80 tires tested, the difference between the original CRR and a value corrected CRR was 0.01 kg/metric ton. The values for the remaining three tires were 0.03 kg/metric ton, 0.05 kg/metric ton and 0.07 kg/metric ton. Based on these results, the agencies believe the lab-to-lab variation for the STL and Smithers laboratories would have very small effect on measured CRR values. Further, in analyzing the data, the agencies considered both measurement variability and the value of the measurements relative to proposed standards. The agencies concluded that although laboratory-to-laboratory and test machine-to-test machine measurement variability exists, the level observed is not excessive relative to the distribution of absolute measured CRR performance values and relative to the proposed standards. Based on this, the agencies concluded that the test protocol is reasonable for this program, but are making some revisions to the vehicle standards.
The agencies also conducted a winter traction test of 28 tires to evaluate the impact of low rolling resistance designs on winter traction. The results of the study indicate that there was no statistical relationship between rolling resistance and snow traction.
For vocational vehicles, the agencies intend to keep rolling resistance as an input to the GEM but with modifications to the proposed targets as a result of the testing completed by EPA since the NPRM and information from tire suppliers. The agencies continue to believe that LRR tires, which are an available, cost-effective, and appropriate technology with demonstrated fuel efficiency and GHG reduction benefits, are reasonable for all on-highway vehicles.
The agencies acknowledge there can be tradeoffs when designing a tire for reduced rolling resistance. These tradeoffs can include characteristics such as wear resistance, cost and scuff resistance. However, the agencies have continued to review this issue and do not believe that LRR tires as specified in the rules present safety issues. The agencies continue to believe that LRR tires, which are an available, cost-effective, and appropriate technology with demonstrated fuel efficiency and GHG reduction benefits, are reasonable for all on-highway vehicles. The final program also provides exemptions for vehicles meeting “low-speed” or “off-road” criteria, including application of speed restricted tires. Vocational vehicles that have speed restricted tires in order to accommodate particular applications may be exempted from the program under the off-road or low-speed exemption, described in greater detail below in Section II.D.(1)(a)(iv).
As just noted, the agencies conducted independent testing of current tires available to assist confirming the finalized rolling resistance standards. The tire test samples were selected from those currently available on the market and therefore have no known safety issues and meet all current requirements to allow availability in commerce; including wear, scuff resistance, braking, traction under wet or icy conditions, and other requirements. These tires included a wide array of sizes and designs intended for most all vocational applications, including those used for school buses, refuse haulers, emergency vehicles, concrete mixers, and recreational vehicles. As the test results revealed, there are a significant number of tires available that meet or do better than the rolling resistance targets for vocational vehicles; both light-truck (with an adjustment factor described later in this preamble section) and non-LT tire types, while meeting all applicable safety standards.
The agencies also recognize the extreme conditions fire apparatus equipment must navigate to enable firefighters to perform their duties. As described below, the final rules contain provisions to allow for exemption of specific off-road capable vocational vehicles from the fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards. Included in the exemption criteria are provisions for vehicles equipped with specific tire types that would be fit to a vehicle to meet extreme demands, including those vehicles designed for off-road capability.
As follow-up to the final rules and in support for development of a separate FMVSS rule, NHTSA plans to conduct additional performance-focused testing (beyond rolling resistance) for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. This testing is targeted for completion toward the end of this year. The agencies will review these performance data when available, in concert with any subsequent proposed rulemakings regarding fuel consumption and GHG emissions
For vocational vehicles, the rolling resistance of each tire will be measured using the ISO 28850 test method for drive tires and steer tires planned for fitment to the vehicle being certified. Once the test CRR values are obtained, a manufacturer will input the CRR values for the drive and steer tires separately into the GEM where, for vocational vehicles, the vehicle load is distributed equally over the steer and drive tires. Once entered, the amount of GHG reduction attributed to tire rolling resistance will be incorporated into the overall vehicle compliance value. The following table provides the revised target CRR values for vocational vehicles for 2014 and 2017 model years that are used to determine the vehicle standards.
These target values are being revised based on the significant availability of tires for vocational vehicles applications which have performance better than the originally proposed 8.1 kg/metric ton target. As just discussed, 63 of the 88 tires tested for vocational applications had CRR values better than the proposed target. The tires tested covered fitment to a wide range of vocational vehicle types and classes; thus agencies believe the original target value of 8.1 kg/metric ton was possibly too lenient after reviewing the testing data. Therefore, the agencies believe it is appropriate to reduce the proposed vehicle standard based on performance of a CRR target value of 7.7 kg/metric ton for non-LT tire type. As discussed previously, this value is the test average of all vocational tires tested (including LT) which takes a conservative approach over setting a target based on the average of only the non-LT vocational tires tested. For LT tires, based on both the test data and the comments from AAPC and Ford Motor Company, the agencies recognize the need to provide an adjustment. In lieu of having two sets of Light Heavy-Duty vocational vehicle standards, the agencies are finalizing an adjustment factor which applies to the CRR test results for LT tires. The agencies developed an adjustment factor dividing the overall vocational test average CRR of 7.7 by the LT vocational average of 8.9. This yields an adjustment factor of 0.87. For LT vocational vehicle tires, the measured CRR values will be multiplied by the 0.87 adjustment factor before entering the values in the GEM for compliance.
Based on the tire rolling resistance inputs noted above, EPA is finalizing the following CO
As with the 2017 MY standards for Class 7 and 8 tractors, EPA and NHTSA are adopting more stringent vocational vehicle standards for the 2017 model year which reflect the CO
Some
The agencies explained in the NPRM that certain vocational vehicles have very limited on-road usage, and that although they would be defined as “motor vehicles” per 40 CFR 85.1703, the fact that they spend the most of their operations off-road might be reason for excluding them from the vocational vehicle standards. Vocational vehicles, such as those used on oil fields and construction sites,
• Tires which are lug tires or contain a speed rating of less than or equal to 60 mph; and
• A vehicle speed limiter governed to 55 mph.
In response to the NPRM, EMA/TMA, Navistar and Volvo agreed with the proposal to exclude off-road vocational vehicles from the standards because these vehicles primarily operate off-road, but requested broadening the exclusion to cover other types of vocational vehicles. Several manufacturers (IAFC, FAMA, NTEA, NSWMA, AAPC, RMA, Navistar and DTNA) requested the exemption of specific vehicle types, such as on/off-road emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles, low speed transit buses or school buses, because their usage was viewed as being incompatible with LRR tires. Navistar opposed the application of the proposed regulations to school buses, arguing that LRR tires may impact the ride quality for children in school buses. However, Navistar also acknowledged that a significant portion of the national fleet of school buses already utilizes off-road tires designed with lug type tread patterns (
For the final rules, the agencies have considered the issues raised by commenters and have decided to adopt different criteria than proposed for exempting vocational vehicles and vocational tractors that primarily travel off-road. The agencies believe that the reasons for proposing the exemption are equally applicable to a wider class of vocational vehicles operating mostly off-road so that the proposals were either unsuitable for the industry or too restrictive to capture all the vehicles intended for the exemption. For example, the NPRM proposal, by using tire tread patterns and VSLs as the basis for qualifying vehicles for the exemption, was too restrictive because other non-lug type tread patterns exist in the market as well as other technologies which are equally capable of limiting the speed of the vehicle, as mentioned by Volvo. Therefore, the
• Any vehicle primarily designed to perform work off-road such as in oil fields, forests, or construction sites and having permanently or temporarily affixed components designed to work in an off-road environment (
• Any vehicle equipped with an axle that has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 29,000 pounds; or
• Any truck or bus that has a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 33 mph; or
• Any truck that has a speed attainable in 2 miles of not more than 45 mph, an unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and no capacity to carry occupants other than the driver and operating crew.
The agencies are also adopting in the final rules provisions to exempt any vocational vehicle that can operate in both on and off-road environments and has speed restricted tires rated at 55 mph or below.
Manufacturers choosing to exempt vehicles based on the above criteria will be required to provide a description of how they meet the qualifications for each vehicle family group in their end-of-the year and final year reports (see Section V).
A manufacturer having an off-road vehicle failing to meet the criteria under the agencies' off-road exemptions will be allowed to submit a petition describing how and why their vehicles should qualify for exclusion. The process of petitioning for an exemption is explained in § 1037.631 and § 535.8. For each request, the manufacturer will be required to describe why it believes an exemption is warranted and address the following factors which the agencies will consider in granting its petition:
• The agencies provide an exemption based on off-road capability of the vehicle or if the vehicle is fitted with speed restricted tires. Which exemption does your vehicle qualify under; and
• Are there any comparable tires that exist in the market to carry out the desired application both on and off road for the subject vehicle(s) of the petition which have LLR values that would enable compliance with the standard?
EPA is finalizing GHG standards
The agencies have analyzed the feasibility of achieving the GHG and fuel consumption standards, based on projections of what actions manufacturers are expected to take to reduce emissions and fuel consumption. EPA and NHTSA also present the estimated costs and benefits of the heavy-duty engine standards in Section III below. In developing the final rules, the agencies have evaluated the kinds of technologies that could be utilized by engine manufacturers compared to a baseline engine, as well as the associated costs for the industry and fuel savings for the consumer and the magnitude of the GHG and fuel consumption savings that may be achieved.
EPA's existing criteria pollutant emissions regulations for heavy-duty highway engines establish four service classes (three for compression-ignition or diesel engines and one for spark ignition or gasoline engines) that represent the engine's intended and primary vehicle application, as shown in Table II-16 (40 CFR 1036.140 and NHTSA's 49 CFR 535.4). The agencies proposed to use the existing service classes to define the engine subcategories in this HD GHG emissions and fuel consumption program. The agencies did not receive any adverse comments to using this approach. Thus, the agencies are adopting the four engine subcategories for this final action.
In the NPRM, the agencies proposed the following CO
The agencies explained in the NPRM that the standards were based on our assessment of the findings of the 2010 NAS report and other literature sources that there are technologies available to reduce fuel consumption in all these engines by this level in the final time frame in a cost-effective manner. Similar to the technology basis for HD engines used in combination tractors, these technologies include improved turbochargers, aftertreatment optimization, low temperature exhaust gas recirculation, and engine friction reductions.
The agencies proposed that the HD diesel engine CO
The agencies proposed to require HD diesel engine manufacturers to achieve, on average, a three percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO
For vocational engines certified on the FTP cycle, the agencies proposed to require a five percent reduction for HHD engines and nine percent for LHD and MHD engines. For LHD and MHD engines in 2017 MY, the nine percent reduction is based on the assumption that valvetrain friction reduction can be achieved in LHD and MHD engines in addition to turbo efficiency and accessory (water, oil, and fuel pump) improvements, improved EGR cooler, and other approaches being used for HHD engines.
Commenters who discussed the HD diesel engine standards generally did not differentiate between the standards for engines used in combination tractors and the engines used in vocational vehicles. As explained above in Section II.B.2.b, some commenters, such as EMA/TMA, Cummins, DTNA, and other manufacturers, supported the proposed standards, as long as the flexibilities proposed in the NPRM were finalized as proposed. Volvo argued that the standards are being phased in too quickly. Environmental groups and NGOs commented that the standards should be more stringent and reflect the potential for greater fuel consumption and CO
In response to those comments, the agencies refer back to our discussion in Section II.B.2.b. The agencies believe that the additional reductions may be achieved through the increased development of the technologies evaluated for the 2014 model year standard, but the agencies' analysis indicates that this type of advanced engine development will require a longer development time than MY 2014. The agencies are therefore providing additional lead time to allow for the introduction of this additional technology, and waiting until 2017 to increase stringency to levels reflecting application of turbocompounding.
While it made sense to set standards at the same level for LHD and MHD diesel engines for vocational vehicles, the agencies found that it did not make sense to set HHD standards at the same level. Based on manufacturer-submitted
After consideration of the comments, EPA and NHTSA are adopting as proposed the CO
Compliance with the standards for engines installed in vocational vehicles will be evaluated based on the composite HD FTP cycle. In the NPRM, the agencies proposed standards based on the Heavy-duty FTP cycle for engines used in vocational vehicles reflecting their primary use in transient operating conditions (typified by both frequent accelerations and decelerations), as well as in some steady cruise conditions as represented on the Heavy-duty FTP. The primary reason the agencies proposed two separate certification cycles for HD diesel engines—one for HD diesel engines used in combination tractors and the other for HD diesel engines used in vocational vehicles—is to encourage engine manufacturers to install technologies appropriate to the intended use of the engine with the vehicle.
DTNA, Cummins, EMA/TMA, and Honeywell commented that certain vocational vehicle applications would achieve greater fuel consumption and CO
In response, while the agencies recognize the value to manufacturers of having additional flexibility that allows them to meet the standards in a way most consistent with how their vehicles and engines will ultimately be used, we remain concerned about increasing flexibility in ways that might impair fuel consumption and CO
As discussed above in Section II.B.2.b, the agencies place important weight in making our decisions about the cost-effectiveness of the standards and the availability of lead time on the fact that engine manufacturers are expected to redesign and upgrade their products during MYs 2014-2017. The final two-step CO
The agencies recognize, however, that the schedule of changes for the final standards may not be the most cost-effective one for all manufacturers. For HD diesel engines for use in tractors, the agencies discussed above in Section II.B.2.b our decision in this final program to allow an “OBD phase-in” option for meeting the standards, based on comments received from several industry organizations indicating that aligning technology changes for multiple regulatory requirements would provide them with greater flexibility. In the context of HD diesel engines for use in vocational vehicles, Volvo, EMA/TMA, and DDC specifically requested an “OBD phase-in” option in its comments to the NPRM. DDC argued that bundling design changes where possible can reduce the burden on industry for complying with regulations, so aligning the introduction of the OBD, GHG, and fuel consumption standards could help reduce the resources devoted to validation of new product designs and certification.
The agencies have the same interest in providing this flexibility for manufacturers of HD diesel engines for use in vocational vehicles as in providing it for manufacturers of HD diesel engines for use in combination tractors, as long as equivalent emissions and fuel savings are maintained. Thus, in order to provide additional flexibility for manufacturers looking to align their technology changes with multiple regulatory requirements, the agencies are finalizing an alternate “OBD phase-in” option for meeting the HD diesel engine standards which delivers equivalent CO
Table II-19 presents the final HD diesel engine CO
In order to ensure equivalent CO
As discussed above in Section II.B.2.b, while the agencies believe that the HD diesel engine standards are appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible in the rulemaking time frame, we also recognize that when regulating a category of engines for the first time, there will be individual products that may deviate significantly from the baseline level of performance, whether because of a specific approach to criteria pollution control, or due to engine calibration for specific applications or duty cycles. That earlier discussion described HD diesel engines for use in combination tractors, but the same supporting information is relevant to the agencies' consideration of an alternate standard for HD diesel engines installed in vocational vehicles. In the NPRM, the agencies proposed an optional engine standard for HD diesel engines installed in vocational vehicles based on a five percent reduction from the engine's own 2011 model year baseline level, but requested comment on whether a two percent reduction would be more appropriate.
Just as for HD diesel engines used in combination tractors, the agencies stress that this option for HD engines used in vocational vehicles is temporary and
The agencies note that manufacturers choosing to utilize this option in MYs 2014-2016 will have to make a greater relative improvement in MY 2017 than the rest of the industry, since they will be starting from a worse level. For compliance purposes, in MYs 2014-2016 emissions from engines certified and sold at the alternate level will be averaged with emissions from engines certified and sold at more stringent levels to arrive at a weighted average emissions level for all engines in the subcategory. Again, this option can only be taken if all other credit opportunities have been exhausted and the manufacturer still cannot meet the primary standards. If a manufacturer chooses this option to meet the EPA emission standards in MY 2014-2016, and wants to opt into the NHTSA fuel consumption program in these same MYs it must follow the exact path followed under the EPA program utilizing equivalent fuel consumption standards.
As discussed above in Section II.B.2.b, Volvo argued that manufacturers could game the standard by establishing an artificially high 2011 baseline emission level. This could be done, for example, by certifying an engine with high fuel consumption and GHG emissions that is either: (1) Not sold in significant quantities; or (2) later altered to emit fewer GHGs and consume less fuel through service changes. In order to mitigate this possibility, the agencies are requiring either that the 2011 model year baseline must be developed by averaging emissions over all engines in an engine averaging set certified and sold for that model year so as to prevent a manufacturer from developing a single high GHG output engine solely for the purpose of establishing a high baseline or meet additional criteria. The agencies are allowing manufacturers to combine light heavy-duty and medium heavy-duty diesel engines into a single averaging set for this provision because the engines have the same GHG emissions and fuel consumption standards. If a manufacturer does not certify all engine families in an averaging set to the alternate standards, then the tested configuration of the engine certified to the alternate standard must have the same engine displacement and its rated power within 5 percent of the highest rated power as the baseline engine. In addition, the tested configurations must have a BSFC equivalent to or better than all other configurations within the engine family and represent a configuration that is sold to customers.
Heavy-duty gasoline engines are also used in vocational vehicle applications. The number of engines certified in the past for this segment of vehicles is very limited and has ranged between three and five engine models.
In our meetings with all three of the major manufacturers in the HD pickup and van segment, confidential future product plans were shared with the agencies. Reflecting those plans and our estimates for when engine changes will be made in alignment with those product plans, we had concluded for proposal that the 2016 model year reflects the most logical model year start date for the heavy-duty gasoline engine standards. In order to meet the standards we are finalizing for heavy-duty pickups and vans, we project that all manufacturers will have redesigned their gasoline engine offerings by the start of the 2016 model year. Given the small volume of loose gasoline engine sales relative to complete heavy-duty pickup sales, we think it is appropriate to set the timing for the heavy-duty gasoline engine standard in line with our projections for engine redesigns to meet the heavy-duty pickup truck standards. Therefore, NHTSA's final fuel consumption standard and EPA's final CO
The baseline 2010 model year CO
Section 202(a)(1) of the CAA specifies that emissions standards are to be applicable for the useful life of the vehicle. The in-use standards that EPA
EPA proposed that the in-use standards for heavy-duty engines installed in vocational vehicles be established by adding an adjustment factor to the full useful life emissions results projected in the EPA certification process to account for measurement variability inherent in testing done at different laboratories with different engines. The agency proposed a two percent adjustment factor and requested comments and additional data during the proposal to assist in developing an appropriate factor level. The agency received additional data during the comment period which identified production variability which was not accounted for at proposal. Details on the development of the final adjustment factor are included in RIA Chapter 3. Based on the data received, EPA determined that the adjustment factor in the final rules should be higher than the proposed level of two percent. EPA is finalizing a three percent adjustment factor for the in-use standard to provide a reasonable margin for production and test-to-test variability that could result in differences between the initial emission test results and emission results obtained during subsequent in-use testing.
We are finalizing regulatory text (in § 1036.150) to allow engine manufacturers to used assigned deterioration factors (DFs) without performing their own durability emission tests or engineering analysis. However, the engines would still be required to meet the standards in actual use without regard to whether the manufacturer used the assigned DFs. This allowance is being adopted as an interim provision applicable only for this initial phase of standards.
Manufacturers will be allowed to use an assigned additive DF of 0.0 g/bhp-hr for CO
EPA proposed that the useful life for these engines and vehicles with respect to GHG emissions be set equal to the respective useful life periods for criteria pollutants. EPA proposed that the existing engine useful life periods, as included in Table II-21, be broadened to include CO
The agencies are finalizing test procedures to evaluate fuel consumption and CO
As previously mentioned, to achieve the goal of reducing emissions and fuel consumption for both trucks and engines, we are finalizing separate engine and vehicle-based emission and fuel consumption standards for vocational vehicles and engines used in those vehicles. For the vocational vehicles, engine manufacturers are subject to the engine standards, and chassis manufacturers are required to install certified engines in their chassis. The chassis manufacturer is subject to a separate vehicle-based standard that uses the final vehicle simulation model, the GEM, to evaluate the impact of the tire design to determine compliance with the vehicle standard.
A simulation model, in general, uses various inputs to characterize a vehicle's properties (such as weight, aerodynamics, and rolling resistance) and predicts how the vehicle would behave on the road when it follows a driving cycle (vehicle speed versus time). On a second-by-second basis, the model determines how much engine power needs to be generated for the vehicle to follow the driving cycle as closely as possible. The engine power is then transmitted to the wheels through transmission, driveline, and axles to move the vehicle according to the driving cycle. The second-by-second fuel consumption of the vehicle, which corresponds to the engine power demand to move the vehicle, is then calculated according to the fuel consumption map embedded in the compliance model. Similar to a chassis dynamometer test, the second-by-second fuel consumption is aggregated over the complete drive cycle to determine the fuel consumption of the vehicle.
NHTSA and EPA are finalizing an approach consistent with the proposal to evaluate fuel consumption and CO
EPA and NHTSA have validated the GEM simulation of vocational vehicles against a commonly used simulation tool used in industry, GT-Drive, for each vocational vehicle subcategory. Prior to using GT-Drive as a comparison tool, the agencies first benchmarked a GT-Drive simulation of the combination tractor tested at Southwest Research against the experimental test results from the chassis dynamometer in the same manner as done for GEM. Then the EPA developed three vocational vehicle models (LHD, MHD, and HHD) and simulated them using both GEM and GT-Drive. Overall, the GEM and GT-Drive predicted the fuel consumption and CO
The agencies are requiring that for demonstrating compliance, a chassis manufacturer would measure the performance of tires, input the values into GEM, and compare the model's output to the standard. As explained earlier, low rolling resistance tires are the only technology on which the agencies' own feasibility analysis for these vehicles is predicated. The input values for the simulation model will be derived by the manufacturer from the final tire test procedure described in this action. The remaining model inputs will be fixed values pre-defined by the agencies. These are detailed in the RIA Chapter 4, including the engine fuel consumption map to be used in the simulation.
In terms of how tire rolling resistance would be measured, the agencies proposed to require that the tire rolling resistance input to the GEM be determined using ISO 28580:2009(E),
The NPRM also discussed the potential for tire-to-tire variability to confound rolling resistance measurement results for LRR tires—that is, different tires of the same tire model could turn out to have different rolling resistance measurements when run on
The agencies received many comments on the subject of tire rolling resistance, including suggestions for alternative test procedures and compliance issues. Regarding whether the agencies should base tire CRR inputs for the GEM on the use of the ISO 28580 test procedure, the American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC) argued that the agencies should instead require the SAE J2452 Coastdown test method for calculating tire rolling resistance, which the commenter stated was preferred by OEMs because it simulates the use of tires on actual vehicles rather than the ISO procedure which tests the tire by itself. The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) argued, in contrast, that the agencies should use the SAE J1269 multi-point test, which is currently the basis for the EPA SmartWay
The agencies analyzed many comments on the subject of tire rolling resistance. One of the primary concerns raised in comments was that the proposed test protocol and measurement methodology would not adequately address production tire variability and measurement variability. Commenters stated that machine-to-machine differences are a significant source of variation, and this variation would make it difficult for manufacturers to be confident that the agency would assign the same CRR to a tire was tested for compliance purposes. Commenters argued that the ISO 28580 test method is unique in that it specifies a procedure to correlate results between different test equipment (
Based on the additional tire rolling resistance research conducted by the agencies, we have decided to use the ISO 28580 test procedure, as proposed, to measure tire performance for these final rules.
The agencies believe this test procedure provides two advantages over other test methods. First, the ISO 28580 test method is unique in that it specifies a procedure to correlate results between different test equipment (
The agencies received comments from the Rubber Manufacturers Association, Michelin, and Bridgestone which identified the need to develop a reference lab and alignment tires. Because the ISO has not yet specified a reference lab and machine for the ISO 28580 test procedure, NHTSA announced in its March 2010 final rule concerning the light-duty tire fuel efficiency consumer information program that NHTSA would specify this laboratory for the purposes of implementing that rule so that tire manufacturers would know the identity of the machine against which they may correlate their test results. NHTSA has not yet announced the reference test machine(s) for the tire fuel efficiency consumer information program. Therefore, for the light-duty tire fuel efficiency rule, the agencies are postponing the specification of a procedure for machine-to-machine alignment until a tire reference lab is established. The agencies anticipate establishing this lab in the future with intentions for the lab to accommodate the light-duty tire fuel efficiency program.
Under the ISO 28580 lab alignment procedure, machine alignment is conducted using batches of alignment tires of two models with defined differences in rolling resistance that are certified on a reference test machine. ISO 28580 specifies requirements for these alignment tires (“Lab Alignment Tires” or LATs), but exact tire sizes or models of LATs are not specifically identified in ISO 28580. Because the test procedure has not been finalized and heavy-duty LATs are not currently defined, the agencies are postponing the use of these elements of ISO 28580 to
RMA also commented that the extra burden proposed by the agencies for testing three tires, three times each is nine times more burdensome than what is required through the ISO procedure. Since the proposal, EPA obtained replicate test data for a number of Class 8 combination tractor tires from various manufacturers. Some of these were tires submitted to SmartWay for verification, while some were tires tested by manufacturers for other purposes. Three tire model samples for 11 tire models were tested using the ISO 28580 test.
For the final rules, the agencies are also including a warm up cycle as part of the procedure for bias ply tires to allow these tires to reach a steady temperature and volume state before ISO 28580 testing. This procedure is similar to a procedure that was developed for the light-duty tire fuel efficiency consumer information program, and was adopted from a procedure defined in Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 109 (FMVSS No. 109).
Finally, the agencies are including testing and reporting for `single-wide' or `super-single' type tires. These tires replace the traditional `dual' wheel tire combination with a single wheel and tire that is nearly as wide as the dual combination with similar load capabilities. These tire types were developed as a fuel saving technology. The tires provide lower rolling resistance along with a reduction in weight when compared to a typical set of dual wheel tire combinations; and are one of the technologies included in the EPA SmartWay
As discussed above, the agencies are taking the approach of using CRR for the HD fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas program to align with the measurement methodology already employed or proposed by the EPA SmartWay program, the European Union Regulation (EC) No 661/2009
Additionally, the CRR metric for use in the MD/HD program is not susceptible to the skew associated with tire diameter. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle tires are available in a small fraction of the tire sizes of the passenger market and, for the most part, are larger tires than those found on passenger cars. When viewing CRR over a larger range of sizes, small diameter tires tend to appear as having a lower performance, which is not necessarily accurate, with the converse occurring as the diameter increases.
Using the CRR value for determining the rolling resistance also takes into account the load carrying capability for the tire being tested, which, intuitively, can lead to some potentially confusing results. Several vocational vehicle manufacturers argued in their comments that LRR tires were not available for,
Based on these considerations, the agencies have decided to use the CRR metric for the HD fuel efficiency and GHG emissions program.
As discussed above, the agencies are finalizing a methodology that chassis manufacturers will use to quantify the tire rolling resistance values to be input into the GEM. Moreover, the agencies are defining the remaining GEM inputs (
Based on NAS's recommendation and feedback from the heavy-duty truck industry, NHTSA and EPA proposed standards for vocational vehicles that would be expressed in terms of moving a ton of payload over one mile. Thus, NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards for these vehicles would be represented as gallons of fuel used to move one ton of payload one thousand miles, or gal/1,000 ton-mile. EPA's proposed CO
The drive cycles proposed for the vocational vehicles consisted of the same three modes used for the Class 7 and 8 combination tractors. The proposed cycle included the Transient mode, as defined by California ARB in the HHDDT cycle, a constant speed cycle at 65 mph and a 55 mph constant speed mode. The agencies proposed different weightings for each mode for vocational vehicles than those proposed for Class 7 and 8 combination tractors, given the known difference in driving patterns between these two categories of vehicles. The same reasoning underlies the agencies' use of the Heavy-duty FTP cycle to evaluate compliance with the standards for diesel engines used in vocational vehicles.
The variety of vocational vehicle applications makes it challenging to establish a single cycle which is representative of all such trucks. However, in aggregate, the vocational vehicles typically operate over shorter distances and spend less time cruising at highway speeds than combination tractors. The agencies evaluated for proposal two sources for mode weightings, as detailed in RIA Chapter 3. The agencies proposed the mode weightings based on the vehicle speed characteristics of single unit trucks used in EPA's MOVES model which were developed using Federal Highway Administration data to distribute vehicle miles traveled by road type.
The agencies received comments stating that the proposed drive cycles and weightings are not representative of individual vocational applications, such as buses and refuse haulers. A number of groups commented that the vocational vehicle cycle is not representative of real world driving and recommended changes to address that concern. Several organizations proposed the addition of new drive cycles to make the test more representative.
Bendix suggested using the Composite International Truck Local and Commuter Cycle (CILCC) as the general purpose mixed urban/freeway cycles and to use four representative cycles: mixed urban, freeway, city bus, refuse, and utility. Bendix suggested using the Standardized On-Road Test (SORT) cycles for vocational vehicles operating in the urban environment in addition to SORT cycles for 3 different vocations—with separate weightings. They stated that SORT with an average speed of 11.2 mph, lines up most closely with the average of transit bus duty cycles at 9.9 mph as well as the overall U.S. National average of 12.6 mph. As alternative approaches they suggested adopting the Orange County duty cycle for the urban transit bus vocation, or creating an Urban Transit Bus cycle with several possible weighting factors—all with very high percentage transient (90% to 100%), very low 55 mph (0% to 7%), very low 65 mph (0% to 3%), and an average speed of 15 to 17 mph. Bendix supported their assertions about urban bus vehicle speed with data from the 2010 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) `Fact Book' and other sources. In contrast, Bendix stated, the GEM cycle average speed is currently 32.6 mph. Such high speeds at steady state will penalize technologies such as hybridization.
Clean Air Task Force said the agencies have not adequately addressed the diversity of the vocational vehicle fleet since they are not distinguished by different duty cycles. They urged the agencies to sub-divide vocational vehicles by expected use, with separate test cycles for each sub-group in order to capture the full potential benefits of hybridization and other advanced technologies in a meaningful and accurate way in future rulemakings for MY2019 and later trucks.
Two groups cautioned that unintended consequences could result from the lack of diversity in duty cycles. DTNA said that the single drive cycle proposed for all vehicles by the agencies would likely lead to unintended consequences—such as customers being driven for regulatory reasons to purchase a transmission that does not suit their actual operation. Similarly, Volvo said medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are uniquely built for specific applications but it will not be feasible to develop regulatory protocols that can accurately predict efficiency in each application duty cycle. This trade-off could result in unintended or negative consequences in parts of the market.
Several commenters suggested changing the weightings of the cycle to more accurately reflect real world driving. Allison stated that the vocational vehicle cycle includes too much steady state driving time. They suggested (with supporting data from
BAE focused their comments on urban transit bus operation. They stated the weighting factors for steady state operation are inconsistent with urban transit bus cycles.
Other commenters suggested the agencies develop chassis dynamometer tests based on the engine (FTP) test. Cummins said that chassis dynamometer testing should allow the use of average vehicle characteristics to determine road load and make use of the vehicle FTP and SET cycles. Others commented that the correlation between the FTP and the UDDS is poor.
After careful consideration of the comments, the agencies are adopting the proposed drive cycles. The final drive cycles and weightings represent the straight truck operations which dominate the vehicle miles travelled by vocational vehicles. The agencies do not believe that application-specific drive cycles are required for this final action because the program is based on the generally-applicable use of low rolling resistance tires. The drive cycles that we are adopting treat all vocational applications equally predicate standard stringency on use of the same technology (LRR tires) to meet the standard. The drive cycles in the final rule accurately reflect the performance of this technology. The agencies are also finalizing, as proposed, the mode weightings based on the vehicle speed characteristics of single unit trucks used in EPA's MOVES model which were developed using Federal Highway Administration data to distribute vehicle miles traveled by road type.
The total weight of the vehicle is the sum of the tractor curb weight and the payload. The agencies are proposed to specify each of these aspects of the vehicle. The agencies developed the proposed vehicle curb weight inputs based on industry information developed by ICF.
NHTSA and EPA proposed payload requirements for each regulatory category developed from Federal Highway statistics based on averaging the payloads for the weight categories represented within each vehicle subcategory.
The agencies received comments from several stakeholders regarding the proposed curb weights and payloads for vocational vehicles. BAE said a Class 8 transit bus has a typical curb weight of 27,000 pounds and maximum payload of 15,000 pounds. Daimler commented that Class 8 buses have a GVWR of 42,000 pounds. Autocar said that Class 8 refuse trucks typically have a curb weight of 31,000 to 33,000 pounds, typical average payload of 10,000 pounds, and typical maximum payload of 20,000 pounds.
Upon further consideration, the agencies are reducing the assigned weight of heavy heavy-duty vocational vehicles. While we still believe the proposed values are appropriate for some vocational vehicles, we reduced the total weight to bring it closer to some of the lighter vocational vehicles. The agencies are adopting final curb weights of 10,300 pounds for the LHD trucks, 13,950 pounds for the MHD trucks, and 27,000 pounds for the HHD trucks. The agencies are also adopting payloads of 5,700 pounds for the Light Heavy-Duty trucks, 11,200 pounds for Medium Heavy-Duty trucks, and 15,000 pounds for Heavy Heavy-Duty trucks. Additional information is available in RIA Chapter 3.
As the agencies are finalizing separate engine and vehicle standards, the GEM will be used to assess the compliance of the chassis with the vehicle standard. To maintain the separate assessments, the agencies are adopting the proposed approach of using fixed values that are predefined by the agencies for the engine characteristics used in GEM, including the fuel consumption map which provides the fuel consumption at hundreds of engine speed and torque points. If the agencies did not standardize the fuel map, then a vehicle that uses an engine with emissions and fuel consumption better than the standards would require fewer vehicle reductions than those being finalized. As proposed, the agencies are using diesel engine characteristics in the GEM, as most representative of the largest fraction of engines in this market. The agencies did not receive any adverse comments to using this approach.
The agencies are finalizing two distinct sets of fuel consumption maps for use in GEM. The first fuel consumption map would be used in GEM for the 2014 through 2016 model years and represent a diesel engine which meets the 2014 model year engine CO
The agencies' assessment of the current vehicle configuration process at the truck dealer's level is that the truck companies provide software tools to specify the proper drivetrain matched to the buyer's specific circumstances. These dealer tools allow a significant amount of customization for drive cycle and payload to provide the best specification for the customer. The agencies are not seeking to disrupt this process. Optimal drivetrain selection is dependent on the engine, drive cycle (including vehicle speed and road grade), and payload. Each combination of engine, drive cycle, and payload has a single optimal transmission and final drive ratio. The agencies are specifying the engine's fuel consumption map, drive cycle, and payload; therefore, it makes sense to specify the drivetrain that matches.
EPA proposed that the GHG emission standards for heavy-duty engines under the CAA would be expressed as g/bhp-hr while NHTSA's proposed fuel consumption standards under EISA, in turn, be represented as gal/100 bhp-hr. The NAS panel did not specifically discuss or recommend a metric to evaluate the fuel consumption of heavy-duty engines. However, as noted above they did recommend the use of a load-specific fuel consumption metric for the evaluation of vehicles.
With regard to GHG and fuel consumption control, the agencies believe it is appropriate to set standards based on a single test procedure, either the Heavy-duty FTP or SET, depending on the primary expected use of the engine. EPA's criteria pollutant standards for engines currently require that manufacturers demonstrate compliance over the transient Heavy-duty FTP cycle; over the steady-state SET procedure; and during not-to-exceed testing. EPA created this multi-layered approach to criteria emissions control in response to engine designs that optimized operation for lowest fuel consumption at the expense of very high criteria emissions when operated off the regulatory cycle. EPA's use of multiple test procedures for criteria pollutants helps to ensure that manufacturers calibrate engine systems for compliance under all operating conditions. We are not concerned if manufacturers further calibrate these engines off cycle to give better in-use fuel consumption while maintaining compliance with the criteria emissions standards as such calibration is entirely consistent with the goals of our joint program. Further, we believe that setting standards based on both transient and steady-state operating conditions for all engines could lead to undesirable outcomes.
It is critical to set standards based on the most representative test cycles in order for performance in-use to obtain the intended (and feasible) air quality and fuel consumption benefits. We are finalizing standards based on the composite Heavy-duty FTP cycle for engines used in vocational vehicles reflecting these vehicles' primary use in transient operating conditions typified by frequent accelerations and decelerations as well as some steady cruise conditions as represented on the Heavy-duty FTP. The primary reason the agencies are finalizing two separate diesel engine standards—one for diesel engines used in tractors and the other for diesel engines used in vocational vehicles—is to encourage engine manufacturers to install engine technologies appropriate to the intended use of the engine with the vehicle. The current non-GHG emissions engine test procedures also require the development of regeneration emission rates and frequency factors to account for the emission changes during a regeneration event (40 CFR 86.004-28). EPA and NHTSA proposed not to include these emissions from the calculation of the compliance levels over the defined test procedures. Cummins and Daimler supported and stated sufficient incentives already exist for manufacturers to limit regeneration frequency. Conversely, Volvo opposed the omission of IRAF requirements for CO
For the proposal, we considered including regeneration in the estimate of fuel consumption and GHG emissions and decided not to do so for two reasons. First, EPA's existing criteria emission regulations already provide a strong motivation to engine manufacturers to reduce the frequency and duration of infrequent regeneration events. The very stringent 2010 NO
Although the final vocational vehicle standards are not premised on use of hybrid powertrains, certain vocational vehicle applications may be suitable candidates for use of hybrids due to the greater frequency of stop-and-go urban operation and their use of power take-off (PTO) systems. Examples are vocational vehicles used predominantly in stop-start urban driving (
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing four flexibility provisions specifically for heavy-duty vocational vehicle and engine manufacturers, as discussed in Section IV below. These are an averaging, banking and trading program for emissions and fuel consumption credits, as well as provisions for early credits, advanced technology credits, and credits for innovative vehicle or engine technologies which are not included as inputs to the GEM or are not demonstrated on the engine FTP test cycle. With the exception of the advanced technology credits, credits generated under these provisions can only be used within the same averaging set which generated the credit (for example, credits generated by HHD vocational vehicles can only be used by HHD vehicles). EPA is also adopting a temporary provision whereby N
EPA and NHTSA are finalizing an approach to defer greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards from small vocational vehicle chassis manufacturers meeting the SBA size criteria of a small business as described in 13 CFR 121.201 (
The agencies have identified ten chassis entities that appear to fit the SBA size criterion of a small business.
EPA and NHTSA have also identified three engine manufacturing entities that appear to fit the SBA size criteria of a small business based on company information included in Hoover's.
To ensure that the agencies are aware of which companies would be exempt, we are finalizing as proposed to require that such entities submit a declaration to EPA and NHTSA containing a detailed written description of how that manufacturer qualifies as a small entity under the provisions of 13 CFR 121.201, as described in Section V below.
In addition to finalizing CO
EPA requested comment on possible alternative CO
Almost universally across current engine designs, both gasoline- and diesel-fueled, N
EPA believes that the final N
EPA requested comments in the NPRM on the approach to regulating N
N
N
EPA is finalizing an N
EPA is finalizing the proposed per-vehicle N
The N
Diesel heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans with advanced emission control technology are in the early stages of development and commercialization. As this segment of the vehicle market develops, the final N
The light-duty GHG rule requires that manufacturers begin testing for N
Overall, we believe that manufacturers of HD pickups and vans (both gasoline and diesel) would meet the standard without implementing any significantly new technologies, only further refinement of their existing controls, and we do not expect there to be any significant costs associated with this standard.
EPA proposed a per engine N
The proposed N
EPA sought comment about deterioration factors for N
EPA sought additional data on the level of the proposed N
Engine emissions regulations do not currently require testing for N
Manufacturers without the capability to measure N
Overall, EPA believes that manufacturers of heavy-duty engines, both gasoline and diesel, would meet the final standard without implementing any new technologies, and beyond relatively small facilities costs for any company that still needs to acquire and install N
EPA is not adopting any vehicle-level N
CH
EPA is finalizing a standard that would cap CH
EPA believes that this level for the standard would be met by current gasoline and diesel trucks and vans, and would prevent increases in future CH
In recent model years, a small number of heavy-duty trucks and engines were sold that were designed for dedicated use of natural gas. While emission control designs on these recent dedicated natural gas-fueled vehicles demonstrate CH
EPA is finalizing the proposed CH
The level of the standard is approximately two times the average heavy-duty gasoline and diesel truck and van levels.
EPA is adopting a heavy-duty engine CH
The level of the final CH
CH
EPA is not adopting any vehicle-level CH
As proposed, if a manufacturer is unable to meet the N
The final NHTSA fuel consumption program will not use CO
EPA also requested comment on revising a portion of the light-duty vehicle standards for N
For light-duty vehicles, as part of the MY 2012-2016 rulemaking, EPA finalized standards for N
After the light-duty standards were finalized, manufacturers raised concerns that for a few of the vehicle models in their existing fleet they were having difficulty meeting the N
Because EPA intended for these standards to be caps with little anticipated near-term impact on manufacturer's current product lines, EPA requested comment in the heavy-duty vehicle and engine proposal on two approaches to provide additional flexibilities in the light-duty vehicle program for meeting the N
EPA also requested comments on an alternative approach of allowing manufacturers to use CO
Commenters providing comment on this issue supported additional flexibility for manufacturers, and manufacturers specifically supported the heavy-duty vehicle approach of allowing CO
Manufacturers supported not only adopting the aspects of the heavy-duty approach noted above, but the entire
EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate to provide additional flexibility to manufacturers to meet the N
In EPA's request for comments, EPA discussed the new flexibility as being needed to address lead time issues for MYs 2012-2014. EPA understands that manufacturers are now making technology decisions for beyond MY 2014 and that some technologies such as FFVs may have difficulty meeting the CH
In response to comments from manufacturers and from the Natural Gas Vehicle Interests that the changes to the program make sense and should be made on a permanent basis (
Air conditioning systems contribute to GHG emissions in two ways—direct emissions through refrigerant leakage and indirect exhaust emissions due to the extra load on the vehicle's engine to provide power to the air conditioning system. HFC refrigerants, which are powerful GHG pollutants, can leak from the A/C system.
Heavy-duty air conditioning systems today are similar to those used in light-duty applications. However, differences may exist in terms of cooling capacity (such that sleeper cabs have larger cabin volumes than day cabs), system layout (such as the number of evaporators), and the durability requirements due to longer vehicle life. However, the component technologies and costs to reduce direct HFC emissions are similar between the two types of vehicles.
The quantity of GHG refrigerant emissions from heavy-duty trucks relative to the CO
For air conditioning systems with a refrigerant capacity greater than 733 grams, EPA is finalizing a leakage standard which is a “percent refrigerant leakage per year” to assure that high-quality, low-leakage components are used in each air conditioning system design. The agency believes that a single “gram of refrigerant leakage per year” would not fairly address the variety of air conditioning system designs and layouts found in the heavy-duty truck sector. EPA is finalizing a standard of 1.50 percent leakage per year for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans and Class 7 and 8 tractors. The final standard was derived from the vehicles with the largest system refrigerant capacity based on the Minnesota GHG Reporting database.
Manufacturers can choose to reduce A/C leakage emissions in two ways. First, they can utilize leak-tight components. Second, manufacturers can largely eliminate the global warming impact of leakage emissions by adopting systems that use an alternative, low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) refrigerant. One alternative refrigerant, HFO-1234yf, with a GWP of 4, has been approved for use in light-duty passenger vehicles under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP). While the scope of this SNAP approval does not include heavy-duty highway vehicles, we expect that those interested in using this refrigerant in other sectors will petition EPA for broader approval of its use in all mobile air conditioning systems. In addition, the EPA is currently acting on a petition to de-list R-134a as an acceptable refrigerant for new, light-duty passenger vehicles. The time frame and scale of R-134a de-listing is yet to be determined, but any phase-down of R-134a use will likely take place after this rulemaking is in effect. Given that HFO-1234yf is yet to be approved for heavy-duty vehicles, and that the time frame for the de-listing of R-134a is not known, EPA believes that a leakage standard for heavy-duty vehicles is still appropriate. If future heavy-duty vehicles adopt refrigerants other than R-134a, the calculated refrigerant leak rate can be adjusted by multiplying the leak rate by the ratio of the GWP of the new refrigerant divided by the GWP of the old refrigerant (
EPA believes that reducing A/C system leakage is both highly cost-effective and technologically feasible. The availability of low leakage components is being driven by the air conditioning program in the light-duty GHG rule which apply to 2012 model year and later vehicles. The cooperative industry and government Improved Mobile Air Conditioning program has demonstrated that new-vehicle leakage emissions can be reduced by 50 percent by reducing the number and improving the quality of the components, fittings, seals, and hoses of the A/C system.
Consistent with the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, we are estimating costs for leakage control at $18 (2008$) in direct manufacturing costs. Including a low complexity indirect cost multiplier (ICM) of 1.14 results in costs of $21 in the 2014 model year. A/C control technology is considered to be on the flat portion of the learning curve, so costs in the 2017 model year will be $19. These costs are applied to all heavy-duty pickups and vans, and to all combination tractors. EPA views these costs as minimal and the reductions of potent GHGs to be easily feasible and reasonable in the lead times provided by the final rules.
EPA is requiring that manufacturers demonstrate improvements in their A/C system designs and components through a design-based method. The method for calculating A/C leakage is based closely on an industry-consensus leakage scoring method, described below. This leakage scoring method is correlated to experimentally-measured leakage rates from a number of vehicles using the different available A/C components. Under the final approach, manufacturers will choose from a menu of A/C equipment and components used in their vehicles in order to establish leakage scores, which will characterize their A/C system leakage performance and calculate the percent leakage per year as this score divided by the system refrigerant capacity.
Consistent with the light-duty rule, EPA is finalizing a requirement that a manufacturer will compare the components of its A/C system with a set of leakage-reduction technologies and actions that is based closely on that being developed through the Improved Mobile Air Conditioning program and SAE International (as SAE Surface Vehicle Standard J2727, “HFC-134a, Mobile Air Conditioning System Refrigerant Emission Chart,” August 2008 version).
EPA is not specifying a specific in-use standard for leakage, as neither test procedures nor facilities exist to measure refrigerant leakage from a vehicle's air conditioning system. However, consistent with the light-duty rule, where we require that manufacturers attest to the durability of components and systems used to meet the CO
In addition to direct emissions from refrigerant leakage, air conditioning systems also create indirect exhaust emissions due to the extra load on the vehicle's engine to provide power to the air conditioning system. These indirect emissions are in the form of the additional CO
These indirect CO
Current EPA emissions control regulations explicitly apply to heavy-duty engines and vehicles fueled by gasoline, methanol, natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. For multi-fueled vehicles they call for compliance with requirements established for each consumed fuel. This contrasts with EPA's light-duty vehicle regulations that apply to all vehicles generally, regardless of fuel type. As we proposed, we are revising the heavy-duty vehicle and engine regulations to make them consistent with the light-duty vehicle approach, applying standards for all regulated criteria pollutants and GHGs regardless of fuel type, including application to all-electric vehicles (EVs). This provision will take effect in the 2014 model year, and be optional for manufacturers in earlier model years. However, to satisfy the CAA section 202(a)(3) lead time constraints, the provision will remain optional for all criteria pollutants through the 2015 model year. Commenters did not oppose this change in EPA regulations.
This change primarily affects manufacturers of ethanol-fueled vehicles (designed to operate on fuels containing at least 50 percent ethanol) and EVs. Flex-fueled vehicles (FFVs) designed to run on both gasoline and fuel blends with high ethanol content will also be impacted, as they will need to comply with requirements for operation both on gasoline and ethanol.
The regulatory requirements we are finalizing today for certification on ethanol follow those already established for methanol, such as certification to NMHC equivalent standards and waiver of certain requirements. We expect testing to be done using the same E85 test fuel as is used today for light-duty vehicle testing, an 85/15 blend of commercially-available ethanol and gasoline vehicle test fuel. EV certification will also follow light-duty precedents, primarily calling on manufacturers to exercise good engineering judgment in applying the regulatory requirements, but will not be allowed to generate NO
This provision is not expected to result in any significant added burden or cost. It is already the practice of HD FFV manufacturers to voluntarily conduct emissions testing for these vehicles on E85 and submit the results as part of their certification application, along with gasoline test fuel results. No changes in certification fees are being set in connection with this provision. We expect that there will be strong incentives for any manufacturer seeking to market these vehicles to also want them to be certified: (1) Uncertified vehicles carry a disincentive to potential purchasers who typically have the benefit to the environment as one of their reasons for considering alternative fuels, (2) uncertified vehicles are not eligible for the substantial credits they could likely otherwise generate, (3) EVs have no tailpipe or evaporative emissions and thus need no added hardware to put them in a certifiable configuration, and (4) emissions controls for gasoline vehicles and FFVs are also effective on dedicated ethanol-fueled vehicles, and thus costly development programs and specialized components will not be needed; in fact the highly integrated nature of modern automotive products make the emission control systems essential to reliable vehicle performance.
Regarding technological feasibility, as mentioned above, HD FFV manufacturers already test on E85 and the resulting data shows that they can meet emissions standards on this fuel. Furthermore, there is a substantial body of certification data on light-duty FFVs (for which testing on ethanol is already a requirement), showing existing emission control technology is capable of meeting even the more stringent Tier 2 standards in place for light-duty vehicles.
In a 2008 final rule that set new locomotive and marine engine standards, EPA adopted a provision allowing manufacturers to use a limited number of nonroad engines to power switch locomotives provided, among other things, that “the engines were certified to standards that are numerically lower than the applicable locomotive standards of this part (1033).” (40 CFR 1033.625(a)). The goal of this provision is to encourage the replacement of aging, high-emitting switch locomotives with new switch locomotives having very low emissions of PM, NO
As indicated above, EPA believes that allowing certification of new switch locomotive engines to nonroad engine standards will greatly reduce emissions from switch locomotives, and EPA does not believe the slight difference in CO standards should prevent this environmentally beneficial program. EPA is therefore adopting a corrective technical amendment in part 1033. The regulation is being amended at § 1033.625(a)(2) to add the following italicized text: “The engines were certified to
EPA adopted changes to fuel economy labeling requirements on July 6, 2011 (76 FR 39478). We are making the following corrections to these regulations in 40 CFR part 600:
• We adopted a requirement to use the specifications of SAE J1711 for fuel economy testing related to hybrid-electric vehicles. In this final rule, we are extending that requirement to the calculation provisions in § 600.114-12. This change was inadvertently omitted from the earlier final rule.
• We are correcting an equation in § 600.116-12.
• We are removing text describing label content that differs from the sample labels that were published with the final rule. The sample labels properly characterize the intended label content.
EPA is adding a new section 86.012-2 to revise the definition of “urban bus.” The new definition will treat engines used in urban buses the same as engines used in any other HD vehicle application, relying on the definitions of primary intended service class for defining which standards and useful life apply for bus engines. This change is necessary to allow for installation of engines other than HHDDE for hybrid bus applications.
In this section, NHTSA and EPA discuss several aspects of our joint technical analyses. These analyses are common to the development of each agency's final standards. Specifically we discuss: the development of the baseline used by each agency for assessing costs, benefits, and other impacts of the standards, the technologies the agencies evaluated and their costs and effectiveness, and the development of the final standards based on application of technology in light of the attribute based distinctions and related compliance measurement procedures. We also discuss the agencies' consideration of standards that are either more or less stringent than those adopted.
This program is based on the need to obtain significant oil savings and GHG emissions reductions from the transportation sector, and the recognition that there are appropriate and cost-effective technologies to achieve such reductions feasibly in the model years of this program. The decision on what standard to set is guided by each agency's statutory requirements, and is largely based on the need for reductions, the effectiveness of the emissions control technology, the cost and other impacts of implementing the technology, and the lead time needed for manufacturers to employ the control technology. The availability of technology to achieve reductions and the cost and other aspects of this technology are therefore a central focus of this final rulemaking.
CBD submitted several comments on whether NHTSA had met EISA's mandate to set standards “designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement” and, to that end, appropriately considered feasible technologies in setting the stringency level. CBD stated that the proposed rule had been improperly limited to currently available technology, and that none of the alternatives contained all of the available technology, which it argued violated EISA and the CAA. CBD also stated that the phase-in schedule violated the technology-forcing intention of EISA, and that the agencies misperceived their statutory mandates, arguing that the agencies are required to force technological innovation through aggressive standards.
As demonstrated in the standard-specific discussions later in this section of the preamble, the standards adopted in the final program are consistent with section 202(a) of the CAA and section 32902(k)(2) of EISA. With respect to the EPA rules, we note at the outset, that CBD's premise that EPA must adopt “technology-forcing” standards for heavy-duty vehicles and engines is wrong. A technology-forcing standard is one that is to be based on standards which will be available, rather than technology which is presently available.
Section 202(a)(1) of course allows EPA to consider application of technologies which will be available as well as those presently available,
With respect to EISA, 49 U.S.C. section 32902(k)(2) directs NHTSA to “determine in a rulemaking proceeding how to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck fuel efficiency improvement program designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement,” and “adopt and implement appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, fuel economy standards, and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-effective, and technologically feasible for commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks”
Neither EPCA nor EISA define “maximum feasible” in the context of setting fuel efficiency or fuel economy standards. Instead, NHTSA is directed to consider and meet three factors when determining what the maximum feasible standards are—“appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and technological feasibility.” 32902(k)(2). These factors modify “feasible” in the context of the MD/HD rules beyond a plain meaning of “capable of being done.”
As detailed below for each regulatory category, NHTSA has considered the appropriateness, cost-effectiveness, and technological feasibility of the standards in designing a program to achieve the maximum feasible fuel efficiency improvement. It believes that each of those criteria is met.
As described in Section I. F. (2) above, the final standards will remain in effect indefinitely at their 2018 or 2019 levels, unless and until the standards are revised. CBD maintained that this is a per se violation of EISA, arguing that, by definition, standards which are not updated continually and regularly cannot be considered maximum feasible. NHTSA would like to clarify that the NPRM specified that the standards would remain indefinitely “until amended by a future rulemaking action.” NPRM at 74172. Further, as noted above, NHTSA has broad discretion to determine the maximum feasible standards. Unlike § 32902(b)(3)(B), which applies to automobiles regulated under light-duty CAFE, § 32902(k) does not specify a maximum number of years that fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles will be in place. Consistent with its broad authority to define maximum feasible standards, NHTSA interprets its authority as including the discretion to define expiration periods where Congress has not otherwise specified. This is particularly appropriate for the heavy-duty sector, where fuel efficiency regulation is unprecedented. NHTSA believes that it would be unwise to set an expiration period for this first rulemaking absent both Congressional direction and a known compelling reason for setting a specific date.
NHTSA believes that the phase-in schedules provide an appropriate balance between the technology-forcing purpose of the statute and EISA-mandated considerations of economic practicability. NHTSA recognizes, as noted in the case above, that balancing each statutory factor in order to set the maximum feasible standards means that the agency must engage in a “reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies.”
Navistar commented generally that the proposed rule was not technologically feasible, stating that the proposed standards assume technologies which are not in production for all manufacturers. This is
Consistent with these previous interpretations, NHTSA believes that a technology does not necessarily need to be currently available or in use for all regulated parties to be “technologically feasible” for this program, as long as it is reasonable to expect, based on the evidence before the agency, that the technology will be available in the model year in which the relevant standard takes effect. The agencies provide multiple technology pathways for compliance with a standard, allowing each manufacturer to develop technologies which fit their current production and research, and the standards are based on fleet penetration rates of those technologies. As discussed below, it is reasonable to assume that all the technologies on whose performance the standards are premised will be available over the period the standards are in effect.
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) commented that the agencies should increase the scope and stringency of the final rule to the point at which net benefits would be maximized, citing Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. EOs 12866 and 13563 instruct agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to select, among other things, the regulatory approaches which maximize net benefits. NHTSA agrees with IPI about the applicability of these EOs and has made every effort to incorporate their guidance in drafting this rule.
Though IPI agreed that the proposed rule was cost-benefit justified, IPI further stated that the agencies must implement an alternative that provides the maximum net benefits. The agencies believe that standards that maximized net benefits would be beyond the point of technological feasibility for this first phase of the HD National Program. The standards already require the maximum feasible fuel efficiency improvements for the HD fleet in the 2014-2018 time frame. Thus, even though, the final standards are highly cost-effective, and standards that maximized net benefits would likely be more stringent than those being promulgated in this final action, NHTSA believes that standards that maximized net benefits would not be appropriate or technologically feasible in the rulemaking time frame. The Executive Orders cited by IPI cannot and do not require an agency to select a regulatory alternative that is inconsistent with its statutory obligations. Thus, the standards adopted in the final rules are consistent with the agencies' respective statutory authorities, and are not established at levels which are infeasible or cost-ineffective.
Here, the focus of the standards is on applying fuel efficiency and emissions control technology to reduce fuel consumption, CO
Our technical work has therefore focused on both engine efficiency improvements and vehicle efficiency improvements. In addition to fuel delivery, combustion, and aftertreatment technology, any aspect of the truck that affects the need for the engine to produce power must also be considered. For example, the drag due to aerodynamics and the resistance of the tires to rolling both have major impacts on the amount of power demanded of the engine while operating the vehicle.
The large number of possible technologies to consider and the breadth of vehicle systems that are affected mean that consideration of the manufacturer's design and production process plays a major role in developing the final standards. Engine and vehicle manufacturers typically develop many different models based on a limited number of platforms. The platform typically consists of a common engine or truck model architecture. For example, a common engine platform may contain the same configuration (such as inline), number of cylinders, valvetrain architecture (such as overhead valve), cylinder head design, piston design, among other attributes. An engine platform may have different calibrations, such as different power ratings, and different aftertreatment control strategies, such as exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) or selective catalytic reduction (SCR). On the other hand, a common vehicle platform has different meanings depending on the market. In the heavy-duty pickup truck market, each truck manufacturer usually has only a single pickup truck platform (for example the F series by Ford) with common chassis designs and shared body panels, but with variations on load capacity of the axles, the cab configuration, tire offerings, and powertrain options. Lastly, the combination tractor market has several different platforms and the trucks within each platform (such as LoneStar by Navistar) have less commonality. Tractor manufacturers will offer several different options for bumpers, mirrors, aerodynamic fairing, wheels, and tires, among others. However, some areas such as the overall basic aerodynamic design (such as the grill, hood, windshield, and doors) of the tractor are tied to tractor platform.
The platform approach allows for efficient use of design and manufacturing resources. Given the very large investment put into designing and producing each truck model, manufacturers of heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans typically plan on a major redesign for the models every 5 years or more (a key consideration in the choice of the five model year duration during which the vehicle standards are phased in). Recently, EPA's non-GHG heavy-duty engine program provided new emissions standards every three model years. Heavy-duty engine and truck manufacturer product plans typically have fallen into three year cycles to reflect this regime. While the recent non-GHG emissions standards can be handled generally with redesigns of engines and trucks, a complete redesign of a new heavy-duty engine or truck typically occurs on a slower cycle and often does not align in time due to the fact that the manufacturer of engines
A redesign of either engine or truck platforms often involves a package of changes designed to work together to meet the various requirements and plans for the model for several model years after the redesign. This often involves significant engineering, development, manufacturing, and marketing resources to create a new product with multiple new features. In order to leverage this significant upfront investment, manufacturers plan vehicle redesigns with several model years of production in mind. Vehicle models are not completely static between redesigns as limited changes are often incorporated for each model year. This interim process is called a refresh of the vehicle and it generally does not allow for major technology changes although more minor ones can be done (
As discussed below, there are a wide variety of CO
As described below, the vast majority of technology on whose performance the final standards are predicated is commercially available and already being utilized to a limited extent across the heavy-duty fleet. Therefore the majority of the emission and fuel consumption reductions which would result from these final rules would result from the increased use of these technologies. EPA and NHTSA also believe that these final rules will encourage the development and limited use of more advanced technologies, such as advanced aerodynamics and hybrid powertrains in some vocational vehicle applications.
In evaluating truck efficiency, NHTSA and EPA have excluded consideration of standards which could result in fundamental changes in the engine or vehicle's performance. Put another way, none of the technology pathways underlying the final standards involve any alteration in vehicle utility. For example, the agencies did not consider approaches that would necessitate reductions in engine power or otherwise limit truck performance. The agencies have thus limited the assessment of technical feasibility and resultant vehicle cost to technologies which maintain freight utility. Similarly, the agencies' choice of attributes on which to base the standards, and the metrics used to measure them, are consciously adopted to preserve the utility of heavy-duty vehicles and engines.
The agencies worked together to determine component costs for each of the technologies and build up the costs accordingly. For costs, the agencies considered both the direct or “piece” costs and indirect costs of individual components of technologies. For the direct costs, the agencies followed a bill of materials approach utilized by the agencies in the light-duty 2012-16 MY vehicle rule. A bill of materials, in a general sense, is a list of components or sub-systems that make up a system—in this case, an item of technology which reduces GHG emissions and fuel consumption. In order to determine what a system costs, one of the first steps is to determine its components and what they cost. NHTSA and EPA estimated these components and their costs based on a number of sources for cost-related information. In general, the direct costs of fuel consumption-improving technologies for heavy-duty pickups and vans are consistent with those used in the light-duty 2012-2016 MY vehicle rule, except that the agencies have scaled up certain costs where appropriate to accommodate the larger size and/or loads placed on parts and systems in the heavy-duty classes relative to the light-duty classes. For loose heavy-duty engines, the agencies have consulted various studies and have exercised engineering judgment when estimating direct costs. For technologies expected to be added to vocational vehicles and combination tractors, the agencies have again consulted various studies and have used engineering judgment to arrive at direct cost estimates. Once costs were determined, they were adjusted to ensure that they were all expressed in 2009 dollars using a ratio of gross domestic product deflators for the associated calendar years.
Indirect costs were accounted for using the ICM approach explained in Chapter 2 of the RIA, rather than using the traditional Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) multiplier approach. For the heavy-duty pickup truck and van cost projections in this final action, the agencies have used ICMs developed for light-duty vehicles (with the exception that here return on capital has been incorporated into the ICMs, where it had not been in the light-duty rule) primarily because the manufacturers involved in this segment of the heavy-duty market are the same manufacturers that build light-duty trucks. For the Class 7 and 8 tractor, vocational vehicle, and heavy-duty engine cost projections in this final rulemaking, EPA contracted with RTI International to update EPA's methodology for accounting for indirect costs associated with changes in direct manufacturing costs for heavy-duty engine and truck manufacturers.
Details of the direct and indirect costs, and all applicable ICMs, are presented in Chapter 2 of the RIA. In addition, for details on the ICMs, please refer to the RTI report (
EPA and NHTSA believe that the emissions reductions called for by the final standards are technologically feasible at reasonable costs within the lead time provided by the final standards, reflecting our projections of widespread use of commercially available technology. Manufacturers may also find additional means to reduce emissions and lower fuel consumption beyond the technical approaches we describe here. We encourage such innovation through provisions in our flexibility program as discussed in Section IV.
The remainder of this section describes the technical feasibility and cost analysis in greater detail. Further detail on all of these issues can be found in the joint RIA Chapter 2.
Class 7 and 8 tractors are used in combination with trailers to transport freight.
EPA and NHTSA collected information on the cost and effectiveness of fuel consumption and CO
Manufacturers can reduce CO
In this section we discuss the baseline tractor and engine technologies for the 2010 model year, and then discuss the types of technologies that the agencies considered to improve performance relative to this baseline, while Section III.A.2 discusses the technology packages the agencies used to determine the final standard levels.
Baseline tractor: The agencies developed the baseline tractor to represent the average 2010 model year tractor. Today there is a large spread in aerodynamics in the new tractor fleet. Trucks sold may reflect so-called classic styling (as described in Section II.B.3.c), or may be sold with aerodynamic packages. Based on our review of current truck model configurations and Polk data provided through MJ Bradley,
Performance from this baseline can be improved by the use of the following technologies:
Aerodynamic technologies: There are opportunities to reduce aerodynamic drag from the tractor, but it is difficult to assess the benefit of individual aerodynamic features. Therefore, reducing aerodynamic drag requires optimizing of the entire system. The potential areas to reduce drag include all sides of the truck—front, sides, top, rear and bottom. The grill, bumper, and hood can be designed to minimize the pressure created by the front of the truck. Technologies such as aerodynamic mirrors and fuel tank fairings can reduce the surface area perpendicular to the wind and provide a smooth surface to minimize disruptions of the air flow. Roof fairings provide a transition to move the air smoothly over the tractor and trailer. Side extenders can minimize the air entrapped in the gap between the tractor and trailer. Lastly, underbelly treatments can manage the flow of air underneath the tractor. As discussed in the TIAX report, the coefficient of drag (Cd) of a SmartWay sleeper cab high roof tractor is approximately 0.60, which is a significant improvement over a truck with no aerodynamic features which has a Cd value of approximately 0.80.
Lower Rolling Resistance Tires: A tire's rolling resistance results from the tread compound material, the architecture and materials of the casing, tread design, the tire manufacturing process, and its operating conditions (surface, inflation pressure, speed, temperature,
Weight Reduction: Reductions in vehicle mass reduce fuel consumption and GHGs by reducing the overall vehicle mass to be accelerated and also through increased vehicle payloads which can allow additional tons to be carried by fewer trucks consuming less fuel and producing lower emissions on a ton-mile basis. Initially for proposal, the agencies considered evaluating vehicle mass reductions on a total vehicle basis for combination tractors.
This reality led us to the solution we proposed. In the proposal, we reflected mass reductions for specific technology substitutions (
For the final rules, based on evaluation of the comments, the agencies developed an expanded list of weight reduction opportunities, from which the sum of the weight reduction from the technologies installed on a specific tractor can be input into the GEM as listed in Table II-9 in Section II. The list includes additional components, but not materials, from those proposed in the NPRM. For high strength steel, the weight reduction value is equal to 10 percent of the presumed baseline component weight, as the agencies used a conservative value based on the DOE report. We recognize that there may be additional potential for weight reduction in new high strength steel components which combine the reduction due to the material substitution along with improvements in redesign, as evidenced by the studies done for light-duty vehicles. In the development of the high strength steel component weights, we are only assuming a reduction from material substitution and no weight reduction from redesign, since we do not have any data specific to redesign of heavy-duty components nor do we have a regulatory mechanism to differentiate between material substitution and improved design. We are finalizing for wheels that both aluminum and light weight aluminum are eligible to be used as light-weight materials. Only aluminum and not light weight aluminum can be used as a light-weight material for other components. The reason for this is data was available for light weight aluminum for wheels but was not available for other components.
As explained in Section II.B above, the agencies continue to believe that the 400 pound weight target is appropriate for setting the final combination tractor CO
A weight reduction of 400 pounds applied to a truck which travels at 70,000 pounds will have a minimal impact on fuel consumption. However, for trucks which operate at the maximum GVWR which occurs approximately in one third of truck miles travelled, a reduced tare weight will allow for additional payload to be carried. The GEM demonstrates that a weight reduction of 400 pounds applied to the payload tons for one third of the trips provides a 0.3 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO
Extended Idle Reduction: Auxiliary power units (APU)s, fuel operated heaters, battery supplied air conditioning, and thermal storage systems are among the technologies available today to reduce main engine extended idling from sleeper cabs. Each of these technologies reduces the baseline fuel consumption during idling from a truck without this equipment (the baseline) from approximately 0.8 gallons per hour (main engine idling fuel consumption rate) to approximately 0.2 gallons per hour for an APU.
Vehicle Speed Limiters: Fuel consumption and GHG emissions increase proportional to the square of vehicle speed. Therefore, lowering vehicle speeds can significantly reduce fuel consumption and GHG emissions. A vehicle speed limiter (VSL), which limits the vehicle's maximum speed, is a simple technology that is utilized today by some fleets (though the typical maximum speed setting is often higher than 65 mph). The GEM shows that using a vehicle speed limiter set at 62 mph on a sleeper cab tractor will provide a 4 percent reduction in fuel consumption and CO
Transmission: As discussed in the 2010 NAS report, automatic and automated manual transmissions may offer the ability to improve vehicle fuel consumption by optimizing gear selection compared to an average driver. However, as also noted in the report and in the supporting TIAX report, the improvement is very dependent on the driver of the truck, such that reductions ranged from 0 to 8 percent.
Low Friction Transmission, Axle, and Wheel Bearing Lubricants: The 2010 NAS report assessed low friction lubricants for the drivetrain as a 1 percent improvement in fuel consumption based on fleet testing.
Hybrid: Hybrid powertrain development in Class 7 and 8 tractors has been limited to a few manufacturer demonstration vehicles to date. One of the key benefit opportunities for fuel consumption reduction with hybrids is less fuel consumption when a vehicle is idling, but the standard is already premised on use of extended idle reduction so use of hybrid technology would duplicate many of the same emission reductions attributable to extended idle reduction. NAS estimated that hybrid systems would cost approximately $25,000 per tractor in the 2015 through the 2020 time frame and provide a potential fuel consumption reduction of 10 percent, of which 6 percent is idle reduction which can be achieved (less expensively) through the use of other idle reduction technologies.
Management: The 2010 NAS report noted many operational opportunities to reduce fuel consumption, such as driver training and route optimization. The agencies have included discussion of several of these strategies in RIA Chapter 2, but are not using these approaches or technologies in the standard setting process. The agencies are looking to other resources, such as EPA's SmartWay Transport Partnership and regulations that could potentially be promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, to continue to encourage the development and utilization of these approaches.
The baseline engine for the Class 8 tractors is a Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel engine with 15 liters of displacement which produces 455 horsepower. The agencies are using a smaller baseline engine for the Class 7 tractors because of the lower combined weights of this class of vehicles require less power, thus the baseline is an 11L engine with 350 horsepower. The agencies
With respect to stringency level, the agencies received comments from Cummins and Daimler stating that the proposed stringency levels were appropriate for the lead-times. Conversely, the agencies received comments from several environmental groups (UCS, CATF, ACEEE) supporting a greater reduction in engine CO
Navistar also stated that the baseline engines proposed in the NPRM, MY 2010 selective catalytic reduction (SCR)-equipped, could not meet the agencies' statutory obligation to set feasible standards, and requested instead that MY 2010 engines currently in-use be used to meet the feasibility factor. The agencies thus disagree with the statement that SCR is infeasible and therefore, the agencies reaffirm that the engine used as the baseline engine in the agencies' analysis does indeed exist. In fact, several engine families have been certified by EPA using SCR technology over the past two years, all of which have met the 0.20 g/bhp-hr NO